The Pros and Cons of Euthanasia and Mercy Killing - Essay Example

Euthanasia Euthanasia, a.k.a. mercy killing or assisted suicide, has been a controversial for many centuries. Proponents of the practice believe that individual freedoms of choice that exist in life also extend to the end of life. They also argue that the sentiment of humane treatment afforded animals that are terminally ill or injured and are suffering should be given to humans as well. Opponents suggest that euthanasia is a ‘slippery slope’ that would allow increasing instances of coerced suicide, family members pressuring the elderly not to postpone their inevitable demise for financial reasons. In addition, the practice would lessen the urgency to develop new medicines designed to prolong life. Those who oppose the practice on religious grounds argue that it is ‘playing God’ therefore sinful. Health care professionals cite the Hippocratic Oath which forbids them from carrying out this procedure. This paper will examine the moral and ethical concerns surrounding euthanasia, clarify the meaning of the term, present arguments both for and against the practice and conclude with a recommendation to resolve the issue. The word euthanasia is from Greek origin meaning ‘good death.’ Writers of 1700’s Britain referred to euthanasia as a being a preferential method by which to ‘die well’ (“Definition”, 2007). Euthanasia describes a situation in which a terminally ill patient is administered a lethal dose of medication, is removed from a life-support system or is simply allowed to die without active participation such as by resuscitation. A doctor’s involvement in the procedure could be to either prescribe a lethal dose of drugs with the express intent of ending a life or by intravenously inserting a needle into the terminal patient who then activates a switch that administers the fatal dose. Physicians, lawmakers and philosophers have debated the notion of euthanasia since the beginning of recorded history but the wide public debate regarding its legalization has only surfaced over the past three decades. In the 1970’s it became lawful to draft ‘living wills’ which allows a patient to refuse ‘heroic’ life saving medical assistance in the event they were incapacitated and could only survive by artificial means. In other words, it gave the next of kin the right to direct doctors to ‘pull the plug’ if the patient’s condition was considered hopeless, a practice which is now broadly accepted. Today, the debate centers on individual autonomy, whether or not patients who suffer from extreme pain and have a terminal or degenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s, AIDS and multiple sclerosis have the right to an assisted death of the type and time of their own choosing (“The Fight”, 2004). Only one state, Oregon, and three countries, Switzerland, Belgium and The Netherlands, allow assisted suicide. The law in Oregon was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court early last year and was upheld by a vote of six to three. In 2001, President Bush attempted to derail the Oregon law permitting euthanasia stating that assisted suicide wasn’t a ‘legitimate medical purpose.’ The justices, however, were not convinced by Bush’s argument. “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out that doctors participate in the administration of lethal injections to death row inmates” (Roh, 2006). Assisted suicide by physicians and non-physicians has been legal in Switzerland since WWII. In addition, three organizations within the country have been established to aid terminally patients. They provide patient counseling as well as the drugs for use in the procedure. Lethal injections are not allowed. Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. Each case must be reviewed by two physicians before the procedure is carried out by either ingestion or injection. In The Netherlands, euthanasia has been legal for four years but has been tolerated for two decades. The guidelines for physicians handed down from the government include; “the patient must be suffering unbearably and have no hope of improvement, must ask to die and the patient must clearly understand the condition and prognosis (and) a second doctor must agree with the decision to help the patient die” (“The Fight”, 2004). The euthanasia debate embraces compelling and impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of euthanasia are concerned with human suffering. Many diseases such as cancer cause a lingering and excruciatingly painful death. Watching a loved one as they wither away from the disease eating away at their organs is tough enough on family members, but to see them suffer even when drugs are administered is unbearable not to mention what the patient must endure. This emotionally and physically torturous situation is played out in every hospital, every day of the year but serves no purpose. To many, it is unimaginable to allow anyone, for example, a sweet old grandmother who has spent her life caring for others to spend the last six months of their life enduring constant pain, unable to control bodily functions, convulsing, coughing, vomiting, etc. The psychological pain for both the family and patient is unimaginably horrific as well. If grandma were a dog, most all would agree that the only humane option would be to ‘put her to sleep.’ U.S. citizens are guaranteed certain rights but not the right to ‘die with dignity.’ This right is not prohibited by the Constitution but by religious zealots who evidently put the quality of life of a dog above grandma’s. Patients suffering from Alzheimer’s may not suffer physical pain but endure a different type of pain and usually for a long period of time. Alzheimer’s is a degenerative disease causing the patient to ramble incoherently and lose their memory. Many people who led vibrant, active and purposeful lives are remembered by their family members in this state (Messerli, 2007). Proponents also argue that the time of health care professionals, of which there is a perpetual shortage, especially nurses, could be used in a more productive manner such as on patients who are not certain to die. Numerous studies have established that understaffed medical care facilities provide a diminished quality of care to all. Those that could benefit from quality care sacrifice their health for those that are suffering a slow, agonizing and undignified death. The cost of health care would be reduced which translates to lower insurance rates. Health care costs have skyrocketed over the past decade and as the ‘baby boom generation’ ages, this problem will increase exponentially which does not benefit anyone. “Consider the huge cost of keeping a dying patient alive for several months. You must pay for x-rays, lab tests, drugs, hospital overhead, medical staff salaries, etc. It is not unheard of for medical costs to equal $50,000-100,000 to keep some patients alive” (Messerli, 2007). It’s a burden on everyone especially on the family that must pay it. Elderly, terminal patients do not want to be responsible for the financial ruin of their children, but do not have the option to call for an end. Euthanasia allows for organs such as livers, hearts and kidneys to be harvested for transplant into otherwise healthy individuals with a potential for many more years of life. It’s unthinkable to allow a child to die so that a terminal patient may live a few more agonizing months. This, in effect, is the result of not allowing people to die with dignity. Speaking of which, many terminally ill people choose to end their own life to evade the previously discussed detriments of a terminal illness. Suicide rates are by far the highest among the elderly population for this reason. “If these people are going to commit suicide, which is better, controlled, compassionate doctor-assisted suicide or clumsy attempts like taking sleeping pills, jumping off a building, or firing a bullet into ones head?” (Messerli, 2007). Opponents to legal euthanasia rightly claim that the practice would be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath. It also would cause a devaluation of human life. Life is held as sacred in the U.S. more so than in many other countries therefore the decisions other countries make regarding euthanasia are not relevant. The legalization could lead to the assisted suicide of patients whose conditions are not necessarily terminal. Though the vast majority of doctors are ethical beyond reproach, not all are. It is common knowledge that some doctors write prescriptions to drug addicts. ‘Diet pills’ are handed out to ‘patients’ who do not have a weight problem but are simply feeding a habit and the doctor is well aware of this. If a minority of doctors can be convinced to prescribe illicit drugs then it is not difficult to imagine a situation where a doctor can be convinced to assist in the suicide of a person who is temporarily depressed due to emotional or psychological reasons. There is a big difference in the two situations, however. A person can decide to end their drug abuse but suicide is irreversible. While most doctors are ethical and are dedicated to quality patient care, insurance companies are concerned with profit, not patients, and may begin to pressure doctors into ending the lives of patients who are costing them thousands of dollars per week. The evidence of this possible eventuality can be plainly seen today. “Many doctors are already prevented from giving patients certain tests or performing certain operations despite what the doctor believes is truly necessary. Legalizing assisted suicide would likely invite another set of procedures as to when life-sustaining measures should be undertaken” (Messerli, 2007). Insurance companies already have too much power to influence health care decisions. Legalized euthanasia would only increase this power. Another likely scenario of legal suicide involves patients who are told that they have a few months to live and decide to not endure this remaining time and end their life sooner rather than later. This not only deprives the family precious time with the patient, but eradicates any chance of recovery or remission of the disease. Plus, suppose the doctor made a mistake in their diagnosis? No one could ever know if they did or didn’t but this possibility would always weigh heavily on the minds of the loved ones left behind. Another consideration is one of religion. If a patient decides to depart this life expeditiously, many of their family members could be against this decision based on personal religious convictions. What may have been a good relationship with loved ones throughout an entirety of life would be soured at the very end (Messerli, 2007). The unfortunate reality is, the majority of people in the U.S. die a ‘bad death.’ A study determined that “more often than not, patients died in pain, their desires concerning treatment neglected, after spending 10 days or more in an intensive care unit” (Horgan, 1996). Most Americans (53 percent) believe euthanasia to be not only compassionate but ethically acceptable and 69 percent would support the legalization of euthanasia according to a Gallup Poll conducted in 2004 (“Public Grapples”, 2004). Opponents of a doctor-assisted suicide law often cite the potential for doctor abuse. However, recent Oregon and UK laws show that you can craft reasonable laws that prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. For example, laws could be drafted that requires the approval of two doctors plus a psychologist, a reasonable waiting period, a family members’ written consent and limits the procedure to specific medical conditions. Finally, the issue should be addressed on the state level and not by ideologues in Washington, D.C. Works Cited “Definition of Euthanasia.” Medicine.net. (2007). May 27, 2007 “(The) Fight for the Right to Die.” CBC News. (September 27, 2004). May 27, 2007 Horgan, John. “Right to Die.” Scientific American. (May 1996). May 27, 2007 Messerli, Joe. “Should an incurably-ill patient be able to commit physician-assisted suicide?” Balanced Politics. (March 4, 2007). May 27, 2007 “Public Grapples With Legality, Morality of Euthanasia.” The Gallup Poll. (July 13, 2004). Roh, Jane. “Supreme Court Backs Oregon Assisted Suicide Law.” Fox News. (January 17, 2006). May 27, 2007 Read More