The Discourse on the Legalization of Euthanasia - Coursework Example

Section Should Human Euthanasia be allowed? Euthanasia is a term that literally refers to “a good death”. It is a combination of two Greek words, “Eu” and “thanatos” where the former means good and later means death(Davis).He further states, “…in modern usage it has come to mean the intentional killing, by act or omission, of a person whose life is felt, by themselves or by others, to be not worth living.” Death is inevitable and everyone is going to face it one day. It is hard to interpret and reach a consensus on people’s opinions about euthanasia, however, we can infer that people desire to die without pain and suffering and want to be surrounded and supported at the time of death. Therefore, most people would vote for euthanasia in cases where someone is suffering from extreme and incurable pain that has no chances to be relieved. This scenario puts the proponent of euthanasia in a position to favor it as a means of pain management in the absence of adequate and appropriate care system. On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia believe that there is no such right as “right to be killed”. It is neither humane nor a solution. Medical profession has progressed beyond imagination; it was developed to kill pain not the patient. Human euthanasia must not be legalized or decriminalized, however, patients of chronically incurable disease or disability can request euthanasia and each case should be considered individually by a board of experts. The discourse on the legalization of euthanasia has been trending the global affairs in the past couple of years. A question that every concerned human being has sought answer is, whether or not, euthanasia should be allowed or legalized. Euthanasia is called “mercy killing” of the chronically ill or disabled people in an effort to end their pain and suffering of their relatives. In most cases, the entire situation is created because of the depression that comes from exhaustion and pain patients and his relatives go through. There are different perspectives on pros and cons of euthanasia. Some sympathize with those who go through pain and want to control it. However, they must consider the bigger picture and widespread consequences of euthanasia laws in any country. During my research and analysis, I came to the conclusion that euthanasia is a slippery slope and it can lead to dangerous consequences. It must not be decriminalized, there can be exceptions, but only a panel of legal and medical experts should decide to opt for euthanasia for a particular patient with his or relatives’ consent. Benjamin asserts that there should be no provision to put someone out of extreme misery and incurable pain. He further states: “Euthanasia—or “mercy killing”—can be practiced by commission, which is illegal, or by omission, which is not...We shall have to find some legal way to accord to human beings the relief we accord to animals...The present situation is utterly unfair to the individual physician who believes that the relief of suffering is one of his principle duties. Many medical practitioners undoubtedly resort to euthanasia, but since they do so secretly it is impossible to say how many...Bigots and sticklers for legal technicalities will always try to prevent of punish humanitarian action by an individual physician. Since the decision rests with him alone, the doctor will rarely ask for the consent of either the patient or the relatives. The mercy killing is therefore done furtively, when it should be done candidly, serenely and lawfully.”(qtd. in “Euthanasia” ). Another argument pro-euthanasia in favour of euthanasia is that people live their lives in a dignified manner, therefore, they should be given right to die with dignity when and how they chose. The reason behind such a demand is to gain control over death just like other areas of life and get rid of incurable illness and extreme pain by getting rid of the source of pain-that particular human being himself. While confronting the idea of death with dignity, Davis argues that it does not imply that we should grant a death with dignity, but it is the right to live life with as much dignity as humanly possible until the life reaches its natural end. It is true because the right to life is an absolute right that neither let others deprive someone, nor he can deprive himself of. Davis argues that the phrase “death with dignity” is often used by promoters of euthanasia that means deliberate death of an ill or disabled person. It is not a desirable term since it implies that such vulnerable people are dignified by death alone. Moreover, Gumpert also believes that euthanasia may be a humane and merciful idea, but can turn out to be an inhumane and risky practice. A progressive society must try to limit its powers over human beings rather than expanding it. It is quite strange to observe that people who condemn capital punishment often support euthanasia (qtd. in “Euthanasia”). When it comes to the abuse of such control over life, promoters of “right to die” assert that euthanasia law must establish “strict safeguards” to avoid potential abuse or misuse of the law. These “safeguards” are supposed to define who must be considered to qualify for a “right to want to die”. Those who want to opt for euthanasia due to disability, degenerative conditions, or terminal disease are appropriate candidates; on the other hand, those with suicidal tendencies without obvious illness or disability are categorized as “wrong to want to die,” therefore, they must be provided appropriate care and assistance to encourage their desire to live. There are suicidal prevention strategies and people to assist suicidal people to survive (Davis). Gumpert argues that legalizing euthanasia won’t do any favor to medical profession at large as it will grant medical professionals with more power, thus responsibility, which is already far more than required. Moreover, legal conditions proposed of granting euthanasia, such as, consent of either patient or his family and state commission decision would give rise to technical and psychological situations that are impossible to endure (qtd. in “Euthanasia”). Ayoub agrees with Gumpert and explains that legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide is a process that depends on the involvement of medical professional. Eventually, it is the doctor who would decide to keep a life or end it. It would lead to the loss of patient’s autonomy and consequent increase in physician’s power. It’ll change the whole doctor-patient relationship since doctor won’t be reliever or comforter, but also the one who can grant death. Moreover, death would become just another option for treatment. On the other hand, Benjamin rejects the objection to euthanasia due to possible fraud or abuse. He argues that there is no possibility of such abuse if the decision or “merciful release” is left to a board appointed by government that includes, for instance, two medical experts, and a legal expert. By doing so, we can assure the implementation of adequate safeguards and prohibit any kind of abuse (qtd. in “Euthanasia”).Even those who are not pro-euthanasia believe that it should be legalized for those who are in “unbearable pain”. It is an argument euthanasia given by promoters very often; however, Davis argues that their definition of pain is very wide. For instance, while defining pain, Sir Ludovic Kennedy, President of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) states, “The patient must be beyond the help of treatment, and find his suffering, physical or mental, unbearable…nor is it only pain…which causes people to long for death, but the miserable side-effects …leading to a gradual disintegration of the personality and death without dignity.” Davis mock the generalized nature of this definition and states, “I experience regularly all the symptoms he cites apart from bedsores, and have done s for m any years, so presumably my personality must be well disintegrated by now. Perhaps my friends are too polite to tell me!”Furthermore, Hospice doctors assert that approximately 95 percent of physical pain can be completely relieved without much effort, for the rest of the pain; there are effective non-drug methods (Twycross qtd. in Davis). It is evident that majority of euthanasia requests come from the patients of depression rather than physical pain or physical disability, which is treatable and should be treated (Davis). Ayoub argues that euthanasia should never be legalized or decriminalized since killing patient rather than pain is always wrong. Patients or their relative may consider euthanasia out of depression and exhaustion, but it is evident that with proper support and palliative care, demand for euthanasia disappears. In medical practice, it is common observation that patients ask for euthanasia because they seek comfort, they are either depressed or their pain and symptoms are not managed properly. In majority of the cases, adequate medical care, treatment of depression, and a palliative care are suitable solutions. Quite often, patients demanding at one point change their mind with time. In most cases, request for euthanasia comes from exhausted relatives, patients don’t ask for a quick death very often. Rather than giving patients an easy escape from suffering, it is much better to ask for meaning of life that they are left with, development of strategies to face existential questions, struggle for optimal care (Ayoub). Decriminalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide will not only promote suicide, but also create unnecessary pressure on people who are chronically ill or disabled who have strong will power to fight, those who need extra care and treatment, or those who have invested in their long-term treatment. Such people may start to consider themselves as an emotional or financial burden over their loved ones, thus go for euthanasia. The legalization of euthanasia would worsen already distorted social attitudes towards chronically ill, disabled people, or even old people (Ayoub).As Oliver and Fisher quote a patient fearing the legalization of euthanasia, “I know I am not the only disabled person who is terrified at the possibility that euthanasia might be legalized.”UK Disability groups expresses fear in a press release and attribute the supposed “right to die” as a trick into a “duty to die” because after legalization, who would prefer to provide support to help chronically ill or disabled people to live with dignity since they would has an economical treatment option to, just kill(Not Dead Yet). Ayoub asserts that human being does not become obsolete or valueless when chronically dependant or dying. Chronic disability, illness or decline in emotional or physical health, or unbearable pain does not undermine the sacredness of life. The option for “dying with dignity” may remain, but first preference should be given to competent palliative care, support, kindness and respect. While Benjamin attributes the “sacredness of life” as sentimental superstitions without logical reasoning (qtd. in “Euthanasia”). Gumpert argues that medicine has developed enough to fight any pain and alleviate unbearable suffering to a miraculous level. No patient dies of unbearable pain, patient die of torment due to the lack of sufficient medical or nursing care. Death has become increasingly difficult now. Human race might need guidance through the experience of death, but not the authority of more or less self-imposed death sentence. He asserts that a lot of things can be done to make human death as natural as possible; however, legalized euthanasia is by no means a good choice (qtd. in “Euthanasia”). On the other hand, Benjamin rejects the argument of “belief in medical miracle” since finding the cure in future does not seem to happen as he states, “How can the hopeless cancer victim or the imbecile child of today benefit by a discovery of tomorrow? The laws regulating euthanasia must of course be flexible, and requirements based on present knowledge may be changed in the future.” (qtd. in “Euthanasia”) While Smith strongly condemns such efforts as he has observed for twenty years that people with disabilities not only invest in expensive treatments, but also suffer pain and discomfort in order to lobby against assisted suicide. The reason behind their initiative is their realization that people with disabilities are in cross hairs, not because they are a group of Astroturf who happened to be disabled, and there is huge difference between them. In addition to that, Smith asserts that evidence from Holland shows a bleak picture. Euthanasia started there for the specific kind of “hard” or “desperate” cases, however, children over 12 are entitled and disabled babies are euthanized in order to avoid their parent’s suffering. According to the head of the intensive care unit of Fabiola hospital in Brussels, in Belgium, there is active euthanasia where you can opt for assisted suicide if you are becoming blind or you can select death by injection if, in case, medical system botches your sex change operation(qtd. in Smith). EPC studies show that about 32 percent of people killed under Belgian euthanasia law were euthanatized without consent or request from either patient of relatives. It is entirely against the established law (Schadenberg qtd. in Smith) but reveals a lot to those who are considering it, either personally or for support as a cause. There is mercy in killing, no dignity in death. Killing has always been and should always be criminalized. Euthanasia is a practice that promotes suicide instead of life and kindness. Patient or their relatives, under severe depression may request euthanasia in some cases; however, legalizing it will give everyone a clear way out of misery without effort. It will not only put an unwarranted pressure on patients (that can increase their depression, thus minimizing their ability to recover) and give great powers in the hands of medical professionals. Without being legalized, it is still in practice; however, legalizing it will deteriorate patient-doctor relationship and society as a whole. Human life has great value and we cannot ignore medical breakthroughs in the past century, therefore, we cannot decide that if some disease is incurable today, it will continue to be incurable tomorrow. In most cases, those who are pro-euthanasia are either paid lobbyists, control freaks, depressed, or in need to palliative care. It is evident that governments are spending fortune over medical health care every year; won’t they want to cut the spending in one form or the other? Those disabled who support and lobby for the cause should have died by now since they appear to be euthanasia enthusiast, or they are just making cash for their disability. Here, the question arises, why someone would pay to lobby for such a cause. At this point we can only guess, but what we can be sure of is that human euthanasia must not be legalized or decriminalized, however, patients of chronically incurable disease or disability can request euthanasia and each case should be considered individually by a board of experts. Works Cited Ayoub, Joseph.What euthanasia is, and nine arguments for why it’s always wrong.”Quebec Life Coalition.29 August.2009.Web. 7 June.2014. Davis, Alison. “A Disabled person’s perspective on Euthanasia.” Disability Studies Quarterly 24.3 (2004):n.pag.Web.5 June.2014. “Euthanasia —Pro and Con: To Kill or Not to Kill: Two experts debate the morality of euthanasia” The nation.12 October.2009.Web.7 June.2014. Kennedy, L. “Why, after 45 years, I can no longer support the Liberal Democrats.”The Times.19 May.2001.Web.6 June.2014. Not Dead Yet. U.S. Disability Group Reacts to UK Court Ruling in Assisted Suicide Case. [Press Release].22 March.2002. Oliver, D. & Fisher, J. (2002). Assisted suicide is not always as easy as suggested. British Medical Journal, 324:846. Smith,J.Wesley. “Phony “Disability Rights” Pro-Euthanasia Scam.”National Review Online.,29 October.2013.Web.8 June.2014. Read More