Legality of Euthanasia - Literature review Example

Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction Euthanasia is not only a very complicated topic but also a very controversial one which for years has been under intense debate without any significant compromise. The issue of Euthanasia basically concerns death, which is an inevitability that all of us have to live with. Normally, everybody would like lead a long, peaceful and fulfilling life and then exit the earth in dignity and honor. It is also generally accepted that a person, provided he/she lives within the laws of land, ought to be granted the right to self-determination as far as their idea of a self-fulfilling lifestyle is concerned. However, it is unfortunate to discover that this right of self-determination is normally taken away whenever a person, due to a terminal illness, feels like he/she is not enjoying the quality of life that he ought to be enjoying and therefore would prefer death than continue with their suffering. 1.2 Thesis Statement Personally, I believe that euthanasia is an act of compassion to those that we care about. This compassion is achieved by ending the pain and suffering of those we care about instead of subjecting them to any unnecessary suffering. Not a single one of us would like to witness the suffering of another person and particularly somebody we care about. Some of us might however argue that legalizing euthanasia will open the floodgates of assisted-suicides even in not-so-dire medical cases. The main goal of this paper therefore is to interrogate these issues as they have been laid bare by various people who have commented on this emotive issue, and if not convince, at least show those who are against euthanasia, the various benefits that its legalization might add to the society. This is because legalizing Euthanasia will not only bring peace to the terminally-ill patients enduring extreme pain while still hoping against hope for the restoration of their health, but also bring relief to those associated with them. 1.3 Paterson, Craig. Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: a natural Law Ethics Approach. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2008. Print In this book, Craig explores the ethic of ending an innocent person’s life, whether self or somebody else’s. There might be myriads of people who had explores this issue from various perspectives in the past. However, Craig opts to tackles the question on whether it is ethical to terminate an innocent life from the perspective of natural laws. In this regard, he revives the natural law approach to moral reasoning from where he proceeds to defend the proposition to the effects that it is a serious moral wrong to end the life of an innocent person’s life (including your own) on grounds of relieving pain or some other seemingly convincing reasons. To him that is murder by another name. In this book Craig offer a detailed analysis of why deliberately terminating an innocent person’s life in the name of relieving such a person’s pain is murder or assisted-suicide by another name. His use of natural law to reach this conclusion is more convincing than most of anti-euthanasia campaigners narratives on the same. In this regard, he contributes significantly to this debate, which in the spirit of open debate is very important. In this book, Craig attempts on several occasions to differentiate “natural laws” from the “law of nature” in order to convince the reader that sound ethical judgment is always grounded on objectivity but not on emotions and passion, as has been the case in the past (Paterson 5). 1.4 Basri, Zakyah. Euthanasia: Which "M" Is It? Mercy or Murder? Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2012. Print In this publication Zakyah present a very simplistic view of looking at the concept “euthanasia” without getting caught in the maze of religion, stereotypes, emotions and passions that have been generated in this debate by conflicting interest. According to Zakyah, the best a person can do to look objectivity while interrogating the advantaged and disadvantages of euthanasia in an effort to decide its merit is to look at it from the medical and religious perspective that it has been subjected in over the years. In demystifying this concept Zakyah offer a very simplistic approach that he proceeds to explore the cynicism that has been generated in this debate, thereby exposing the passion and emotion that continues to obstruct the creation of an environment conducive for an objective debate. Zakyah wonder why those opposed to euthanasia fails to see the suffering and pain that terminally patients are subjected to in the name of respecting life. Coming from the mouth of a nurse who has been there and seen it all, the narration in this article of the pain and suffering that terminally ill patient undergo provides the emotion that Zakyah criticize for denying this debate the requisite objective. It is like using what you are accusing others of using to strengthen your own case. However, it provides a clear picture of the grounds that pro-euthanasia advocates have been using which can easily swing the undecided on their side in this debate. Though short, this book offers one of the most objective analyses of the controversial issue of euthanasia. It is interesting to see how Zakyah avoid getting involved in religious and stereotypical emotions of mercy killing that have almost solely denied this debate the much-needed objectivity. 1.5 Wong, C. Kam. Whose Life is it anyway? Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal 5 (2006). Print This article does not pretend to break new ground on the issue of euthanasia at all. Rather, it tries to bring into perspective the realities of whatever euthanasia attempt to heal and achieve. In this regard, it offers a case of a terminally ill cancer patient begging for assistance to end her live together with the misery that comes with a terminal disease like cancer. However, the kind of a doctor that she is begging for that assistance is one who does not belief in euthanasia or any form of assisted-suicide. The position of the author of this article is quiet clear when he asks in the title “whose life is it anyway.” This is a rhetoric question that seems to rubbish those who are very quick to flash “the right to life” slogan in opposition to euthanasia every time an objective debate on euthanasia is sought. What Wong is saying is that an ideal candidate for euthanasia is normally in a desperate situation and therefore a heart-beat away from real death. It is because of that fact that he suggest that the debate in euthanasia will not solve anything since those opposed to it have refused to acknowledge this fact. There is no doubt that a patient who might require to be assisted in ending unbearable and hopeless pain might be counting down month, days or even hours to his/her death, however, it is important to understand that there are other patient who might be seeking the same assistance solely because the negligence of their doctor has made their case look desperate when they are not actually dire to require a drastic intervention such as assisted-suicide. There is no doubt that the author in penning this article is informed by the need to reassess the old argument concerning euthanasia while prospecting on new possibilities. Therefore his effort in this particular case is to create conducive conditions for the generation of new and more creative ideas on the issue of euthanasia. The author of this article has done a tremendous job in reassessing old arguments that has been advanced concerning euthanasia. However, in doing so it commit a common sin in this debate namely; evoking passion and emotion as a way of ensuring that one is heard. In this regard, I am referring to the authors report concerning a terminally ill cancer patient who is for a peaceful and dignified death in the hands of a humanistic doctor who can hear nothing of that. 1.6 Haan, Jurriaan. The Ethics of Euthanasia: Advocates’ Perspectives.” Bioethics, 16 (2002) 154-172 This article reconstructs the debate on euthanasia particularly in Netherlands, where law makers have found it fit to legalize euthanasia, on the reasons why it ought to be permitted in order to clarify numerous other reasons why euthanasia ought to be legalized. In this regard, it interrogates autonomy which is the justification behind Netherlands’ legalization of Euthanasia. In doing so the author argues that the justification for euthanasia should only rest on the respect of autonomy on the part of the patient, which is all what the legal principle of The Pure Autonomy View (TPAV) asks. The author further invokes The Joint View (TJV) which is basically a principle of autonomy and beneficence to justify the reason why euthanasia ought to be legalized. This is to say that euthanasia should only be continued if the patient asks for it after making a well-considered and sustained request for the same. In supporting his argument to the effect that euthanasia is not only ethical but also ought to be legalized in other countries, the author seems to base his argument on the idea that since a patient is suffering terribly and hopelessly, euthanasia is in his or her best interest. However, I dispute this line of argument because to me it appear like a thin-veiled attempt at forcing on people the view that death is in a person’s best interests which to me is outrageous. Though well researched, this article restricts its focus on Netherlands where euthanasia has already been legalized. It would have been better to tackle this debate from a broader perspective as majority of its audience are from countries where the mere idea of legalizing euthanasia is still flown upon. 1.7 Nicolosi, Barbara. “Exposing Euthanasia through the Art.” Crisis Magazine, 3 June. 2011. Print This article is just a rebuke to the latest trend in the entertainment industry where euthanasia appears to have gotten an ally in the entertainment industry. In this article the authors criticizes the “good” among us for keeping quiet as this pro-euthanasia propaganda is being waged perpetuated by Hollywood and in general, the entertainment industry. An example of this slow pro-euthanasia campaign that Nicosia sites in this article include the 2011 Golden Globe cerebration where a docudrama going by the name “You Don’t Know Jack” that featured the Dr. Jack Kevorkian who has gained notoriety for assisting terminally patients, received a standing ovation despite its obvious support for euthanasia. Nicosia appears pissed-off that this docudrama ended up not only being nominated for a total of eleven Emmys but also winning one of these Emmys for Al Pacino. Nicosia beliefs that this campaign is not confined to films but also TV shows as well. In this regard, he points several top-rated TV shows that include; Law, House, and ER, all of which Nicosia beliefs have been consistently presenting euthanasia or mercy killing in positive light. The same can be said of The Simpson, Order and Nurse Time. Nicosia is a worried man that many parents do not even have an idea that when they send their kids to movies like Sanctum, Talk to Me, Million Dollar, and The English Patient, they are in effect exposing them to acts that he beliefs are as callous as murder or suicide. Nicosia strongly belief that as pro-euthanasia continues framing sympathy on this issue, the pro-euthanasia will continue getting an edge over anti-euthanasia. He therefore urges those who care to initiate an all-out war against these pro-euthanasia campaigners instead of just issuing a harangue here and there once in a while. This article is a nice read for anti-euthanasia but not for a person looking for an objective analysis of the issue of euthanasia and mercy killing. In my opinion it is neither objective nor insightful as it has been penned by a person who already has a set mind. All what a person get after reading it is an attempt to incite anti-euthanasia forces again pro-euthanasia forces instead of countering their arguments with hard fact. In my view statements like “we ought to be not just shrewder but also all-encompassing in countering pro-euthanasia propaganda if we are to win this fight (Nicolosi 1)” is just unfortunate. 1.8 Shakespeare, Jocasta. “Euthanasia: We should not be made to Suffer like this.” The Telegraph 25 Feb. 2008. Print In this article by Jocasta, we see an attempt to use emotion to win people heart in supporting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In this regard, he narrates the story of Val McKay, a terminally sick lady with multiple sclerosis; a narration that is interspersed with directs quotes from Val on her suffering at the hands of this deadly disease. Val wish is perfectly reflected in this article title if the predicaments that she narrates are anything to go by. Reading the predicament that Val has been going through courtesy of her terminal illness that will definitely continue inflicting her pain, even a diehard anti-euthanasia supporter cannot fail to think deeply about the practical essence of euthanasia. Since 46 years ago when she was diagnosed with multiple-sclerosis, Val’s body has literary been shutting-off. It is even unfortunate that she has been left with absolutely no alternative but to fight-off occasional bouts of pain that can as well be excruciating, as she wait for her death. Those associated with her are neither lucky since they also have to endure the agony of helplessly watch her as she ‘shut-off’ gradually. Twenty two hours of her day are spent in the bed while the other two are for eating which she has to be assisted because she has since lost her ability to move her left leg and right arm, while waiting to lose that of the other limps in a month’s time if the doctor prediction is anything to go by. For her, life is meaningless and she long for that day when she will be dead since no one want to ‘shut-her-off’ in advance instead of waiting for the six months that the doctor has said she has in this world. To Val, what is even more frightening is not the pain but the “horrific natural death” that her doctor has predicted in six month. According to her doctor she is likely to lose her swallowing reflex and then her ability to converse before being consigned to being “peg fed” by a tube that will snake through to her stomach when her airways close down, something that she has been warned that might as well choke her to death. At least, in the midst of the noise that the pro and anti-euthanasia campaigners have been generating over the years as they try to outdo one another in this debate, it is interesting to get a first-hand view of this issue from a candidate of euthanasia like Val. That said, I strongly believe that what this narration from Val does most is to evoke emotion thereby denying it the objectivity that it highly requires. There is also no doubt that due to his condition, Val cannot be expected to offer a balanced opinion on this issue, as has been betrayed by statement from her like “the law is very cruel which to me is wrong” (Shakespeare 1).” 1.9 Pollard, Brian. “Why Safe Euthanasia is a Myth.” (2011). Retrieved on 15th April 2012 from http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_safe_euthanasia_is_a_myth This article takes a look at the laws that have been legislated in regards to euthanasia in Australia. In this regard, it audits the collection of these legislations together with their enabling laws since the debate on euthanasia commenced. However, one thing that is clear in this article is the fact that its author does not advocates for euthanasia which explain why he appear to find so many faults and weaknesses with these laws and the logic behind their legislation. However, his contribution to this debate cannot be ignored particularly because there is no doubt that the legislations that have so far been enacted in relation to euthanasia have played a part in denying this debate the required objectivity. For instance, terminologies that have been used in the legislation of these laws have at time been vague. A good example can be found in the words “terminal illness” which has been used in almost all laws that concerns euthanasia. It is the author’s contention that words like “incurable diseases” would be better and more convincing to those who still look at euthanasia as assisted-suicide. The author also argues that the laws should require the physician to be “satisfied’ that truly the patient’s request was freely made and also that such a patient was in such a desperate situation that could warrant medical intervention of the nature of euthanasia. However, what the author fails to bear in mind is the fact that a terminally ill patient in need of assistance in terminating her/her life might not be able to exercise his/her autonomy due to issue of depression and unrelieved bouts of pain. Such a patient might as well be in a vegetative state in which case consent to on assisting him/her in riding her/himself of pain will be shouldered by a relative or friend but certainly not her/himself. In fact, even if a terminally ill patient was to ‘exercise’ her right of autonomy in asking for assistance to riding her/himself from pain, then the doctor is likely to wield immense influence in the resultant decision since doctors are experienced in persuading patients when making medical decisions. Doctor influence on patient’s medical decision might as well be triggered by doctor’s incompetence or negligence. For instance, the author wonder what would happen if the doctor is so negligence in his/her treatment such that he/she is the one who solely subjected a patient to such pain that such a patient contemplate ending his/her life. A critical analysis of this article reveals two things. First, is that autonomous of the patient, which is behind almost all arguments for euthanasia, cannot be enforced without the doctor consent. According to him a patient who expresses his/her desire to die ought to be counseled instead of being killed. Therefore, it is the author’s view that the doctor decision always carries the day in cases of terminally ill patients where such patients expresses their desire to be relieved their pain through a kind of an assisted suicide. That being the case, it would be totally unfortunate for a doctor to go ahead and kill his or her patients for reason that such a patient feels that death is the only option. This article is well researched and especially on legal issues touching on euthanasia. However, the fact the author exposes his opposition to euthanasia at every point denies him an opportunity to offer a balanced analysis of the issues surrounding this debate. This is the reason why even the title “why safe euthanasia is a myth (Pollard 1)” gives a reader a clue of what to expect in this article namely; a biased analysis of the issues surrounding euthanasia. 1.10 Bommarito, Sal. “Euthanasia helps avoid Unnecessary Pain and Suffering.” (2012) Retrieved on 15th April 2012 from http://www.policymic.com/articles/4398/euthanasia-helps-avoid-unnecessary- pain-and-suffering Though short, this article offers a candid analysis of why euthanasia is necessary. In this article the author attacks all the grounds that have been used to oppose euthanasia thereby offering his reasons why euthanasia is good. In this regard, he starts with the attack on catholic’s view to the effect that suicide is not only a mortal sin but the only one which does not give the sinner an opportunity to repent. In countering this line of reasoning he invokes his doubts on the so-called eternal damnation or the belief that those who kill others or themselves will be consigned to hell, which forms the ground for the Catholic Church’s opposition to euthanasia. However, as much as the author roots for assisted suicide or euthanasia, he wonders whose responsibility is it to decide when a terminally ill patient should be assisted in ending his/her pain and suffering through assisted suicide, especially in cases where the terminally ill patient is no longer having a sound mind. This is because the family might require a say in such an important decision, not to mention the church and even the presiding doctor in such a case. This is where the problem occurs because the family decision to terminate the life of a loved one might be informed by the need to save itself any further drain on resources. To the author, this opens the door for abuse if euthanasia is not monitored and supervised carefully, which he still maintain is a tall order for the medical fraternity. This article by Sal is another one sided article on the topic of euthanasia. The statement like “do we want to wear away as our loved ones watch us while still our financial resources are wasted for just a few days of life (Bommarito 1),” betrays the author’s intention at rallying the readers behind euthanasia. 1.11 Wolf, M., Susan. “Confronting Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: My father’s Death.” The Hastings Center Report 38. 5 (2008): 23-26 In this article, the author details his struggles with her terminally ill father’s appeal for assistance in ending his life, something that completely withered his opposition to euthanasia. She narrates how she initially refused her father requests for assistance in ending his life after the termination of artificial hydration and nutrition only to reconsider that decision later after witnessing the suffering that he was going through. Her narration on how she was moved into changing her stand on euthanasia when she witnessed her father being ‘eaten’ gradually by a severe metastatic neck and head cancer. This narration reveals the pain and suffering that both the patients of terminal diseases and their relative suffer at the hands of these terminal diseases. Wolf details how difficult it was for her to refuse his father his wish of being saved from the pain and suffering and also from being a burden to her through the termination of her life. For the first time, Wolf was left wondering whether respecting his father wish was a show of love or was it in refusing performing it and subjecting him to further pain and agony. Once again this article offers us a chance to be objective in approaching this debate on whether to legalize euthanasia or not. It however also exposes us to emotion and passion as we interrogate whether to legalize it or not thereby denying us the objectivity that is normally highly needed in issues of this nature. In this article, narrative comes head-on with analytic scholarship, as the author is forced to re-evaluate arguments that have been generated over the years of research and scholarship concerning euthanasia as her father lies dying. The greatest strength of this article is in the fact that it explores arguments and research that have been forwarded for and against euthanasia over the years before making a conclusion based on that analysis. It is an insightful piece that explores the merit and demerits for and against euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. 1.12 Cohen-Almagor, Raphael, (2008). The Right to die With Dignity: An argument in Ethics and Law. Health Law & Policy 2. 1 (2008): 2-8. This article explores the ways people would like to die. In doing so it analyses the legal situation in countries like Netherlands, Belgium and several other countries that have legalized euthanasia. While criticizing the physician-assisted suicide models from these countries, the author concludes that the Oregon model is comparable better than the others because of the few abuses that it contains. It is at this point that the author set out guidelines for improving the conduct of physician assisted suicide which he has built from the experiences of Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Oregon and the Northern Territory of Australia. The main issue that Raphael appears to be belaboring in this article is on whether it is possible for us to uphold our self-respect and autonomy as we approach our death without facing any humiliation or loss of honor and dignity. According to Raphael, we can only exit this life in honor and dignity if we die at home with our loved ones instead of the current situation where majority of people outside Netherlands have been found to be dying in hospital surrounded by medical professionals because they have been denied the opportunity to exercise their right to decide when to die. This according to Raphael is the price that we have to pay for not legalizing euthanasia. By taking a look at the countries where euthanasia has been legalized this article does something that majority of commentators in this debate have ignored or deliberately refused to do. As a result this action has accorded him the opportunity to provide one of the most compelling reasons why euthanasia is not as bad as some people would like us to believe. 1.13 Conclusion What these articles seem to suggest is that legalizing euthanasia is the way to go if we are to exit this earth in dignity and honor. Work Cited: Basri, Zakyah. Euthanasia: Which "M" Is It? Mercy or Murder? Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2012. Print. Bommarito, Sal. “Euthanasia helps avoid Unnecessary Pain and Suffering.” (2012) Retrieved on 15th April 2012 from http://www.policymic.com/articles/4398/euthanasia-helps- avoid- unnecessary- pain-and-suffering Cohen-Almagor, Raphael, (2008). The Right to die With Dignity: An argument in Ethics and Law. Health Law & Policy 2. 1 (2008): 2-8. Haan, Jurriaan. The Ethics of Euthanasia: Advocates; Perspectives.” Bioethics, 16 (2002) 154-172 Nicolosi, Barbara. “Exposing Euthanasia through the Art.” Crisis Magazine, 3 June. 2011. Print. Paterson, Craig. Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: a natural Law Ethics Approach. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2008. Print. Pollard, Brian. “Why Safe Euthanasia is a Myth.” (2011). Retrieved on 15th April 2012 from http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_safe_euthanasia_is_a_myth Shakespeare, Jocasta. “Euthanasia: We should not be made to Suffer like this.” The Telegraph 25 Feb. 2008. Print. Wolf, M., Susan. “Confronting Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: My father’s Death.” The Hastings Center Report 38. 5 (2008): 23-26 Wong, C. Kam. Whose Life is it anyway? Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal 5 (2006). Print. Read More