Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia and the Right to Die - Essay Example

Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia and the Right to Die Sur Information Outline THESIS: Euthanasia is a legislated killing of human being, so it comes to be rather controversial issue, especially in cases when medical indications are inseparably bounded with the life quality. That is why accept or not accept euthanasia is a purely private issue to decide for each person, as well as it will always be subjective. I. The definition of euthanasia and history of its implementation. A. Euthanasia by Francis Bacon – pleasant death. B. Role of bioethics in the euthanasia’s society acceptance. C. Famous precedents of euthanasia. Jack Kevorkian. Sigmund Freud. II. Reasons for society to accept euthanasia. A. It is not a human perspective to exist within the confines of a hospital bed. B. Drugs aimed to “facilitate” sufferings at the same time destroy human personality. C. Euthanasia is the only solution when life turns into total suffering. III. Reasons to criticize euthanasia. A. Medical errors are rather common, thus reasons for euthanasia in some of the unique cases may be one more physician’s mistake. B. The life of a suffering person is not less valuable, C. Doctor must never assume the role of the fate and make decisions whether patient should live or die. D. Euthanasia as rational suicide is impossible, as people always evaluate own life subjectively. E. Euthanasia doesn`t solve crucial problems; suffering as challenge makes individual’s life more valuable and unique. IV. There is no consensus on the question “Whether euthanasia has to be legalized?” A. Accept euthanasia or not is the private issue of each person. B. A set of rules for allowing euthanasia should be created, though each case should be investigated with individual approach. Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia and the Right to Die While talking about euthanasia we discuss the legislated killing of human being. That is why it comes to be a rather controversial issue, as it is difficult to find a compromise on who has the right to forbid the man to take the fateful decision about his own life. Especially it comes to be crucial in those cases when medical evidences are inseparably bounded with the life quality. The word "euthanasia" was firstly used in the XVII century by Francis Bacon to define pleasant death. He built it from two Greek roots: "eu" - "good" and "thanatos" – "death." Nowadays under the euthanasia it is understood the medical care about patient suffering from an incurable painful disease, which implies fast and painless termination of life. There is passive euthanasia, which means cessation of maintenance therapy and includes disconnection from the life-support systems, and active euthanasia - the injection of drugs that cause death, as well as transfer of such drugs to the patient for self-use (Rachels, 79). The term "euthanasia" has recently acquired the new meaning in bioethics terminology. Bioethics is a new discipline, as well as the corresponding area of scientific and medical practices that deals with specific moral dilemmas that arise in a scientific experiment and clinical practice due to the fact that new technologies fundamentally empower treatment, allowing to penetrate the genetic mechanisms that influence directly on the psyche. Bioethics discusses the problem of euthanasia basing on the distinction of treatments, types of patients and situations; focusing on very specific analysis, and it goes even further – it requires investigation of each possible case of euthanasia in its uniqueness (Rachels, 103). Euthanasia was particularly widespread in some countries before Second World War (Burleigh, 37). One of the most famous precedents of euthanasia use was in the practice of the American “Dr.Death” Jack Kevorkian, who put the process of assisted suicide on a stream. He even provided a lethal injection system shutdown in order to give the patient the possibility to change his/her mind in the last minute and go back to life. Another striking example is Sigmund Freud, who for many years suffered from the cancer of palate and endured nineteen operations under local anesthesia. So he decided to die painlessly by lethal injection in 1939 (Rachels, 97). Such examples bring an issue “Is the existence within the confines of a hospital bed is a human perspective?” As a consequence, it inevitably causes the inability to care about yourself, and thus a dependence on relatives and nurses. Of course, modern medicine has an arsenal of tools, such as morphine, which are able to "facilitate" sufferings of deathly ill patients. But at the same time those drugs destroy the mind and psyche of the patient, as though they cure, they are still drugs. Thus, while “improving” patients life, human personality is being destroyed by those medical curing. That is why the liberal policy of European and United States seems to be logical continuation of the thought, according to which the value of human life comes to be secondary to the will of a person. It means that the decision of a person who is not psychotic and who may be responsible for own actions is the most valuable. A person who is adequate and does not suffer from mental disorders may do anything towards himself, his health and life, if it does not cause harm to others and is not prohibited (Seale, 650). In addition everybody will agree that life is good as long as the pleasure prevails over suffering and positive emotions over negative ones. So euthanasia seems to be the only solution in some cases (for instance, when life cannot be maintained in other way except while suffering and those suffering cannot be relieved in other way except accelerating death). In short, if the suffering is evil, how can we morally justify the preservation of life, which has become one suffering? This argument is very strong, especially when life is totally painful. Sure, it is needless to say that the doctors have to mitigate the suffering and agony of patients. The most obvious problem is that the drug killing method is used and can be used not only with humane intentions. Along with that from time some people defend such method to legitimize the killing of people whose lives are supposedly no longer represent any value. That is why some arguments against euthanasia still exist (Putman, 329). Again and again debates about the right of medicine and law to make decisions about implementation of the right to die are being raised (Quill, 62). As medical errors are rather common, who will ensure that in the case of patient’s making informed decision on the voluntary retirement from life physicians wouldn’t crept another mistake? Another argument against euthanasia is an ethical one: the modern society is less appreciates the gift of life. That is why some religious authorities consider that legalization of voluntary death is irresponsible, as the life of a suffering person is not less valuable (Quill, 64). It is a hedonic approach to enjoy life only when it is good and to decrease its value when we do not get pleasure out of it (Meier). We must assume that doctors must save people. However, if the fate really prepared a persons death, it will always find a way to make a doctors help come too late. If this does not happen, the doctor must pursue his mission and never assume the role of fate as well as make decisions whether to leave the patients life or not basing on own philosophical beliefs. Legalized euthanasia would lead to a devaluation of the dignity and to the corruption of the doctor’s professional duty to preserve, but not to end life. "Right to die" can easily become a threat to the life of patients whose treatment is lack of funds (Solarino, 546). Often the concept of "rational suicide" is being used. It describes the ability of a person to sum up the whole life consciously and to decide whether he/she wants to reject any further existence. But first of all we should question whether every person is able to evaluate own life with sufficient objectivity. This is especially true when a person comes to the conclusion that his/her problems are intractable or that the only possible solution is to commit a suicide. No matter how strong was this conviction, it still remains subjective. No one can know in advance whether the way he/she assesses the situation was the right one and whether he/she is objective in own judgments. Suicide is not able to solve any problems. Those who want to commit suicide often appear to be like a chess player who facing with the very difficult task just smacks the pieces off the board. But the problems cannot be solved in this way (Lo, 870). There is nothing better helps a person to overcome difficulties and to stop suffering as the realization of the fact that he/she faces a vital task, that he/she lives for the sake of something or someone. It is especially true when a person considers his problem being designed personally for him. Suffering challenges person and helps him/her to feel own indispensability, thus the life appears to be more valuable and unique. If we investigate life from the perspective of its inherent tasks, we may come to the conclusion that the life is always the more meaningful, the more difficulties it experienced. It all depends on the meaning of the sufferings which man sees, what for he is willing to tolerate them. Someone can tolerate sufferings for an idea, for the sake of love, for the sake of creativity; someone is finding out the religious sense of his sufferings. There are those who simply tolerate, without seeing any higher idea (Van der Maas, 670). Yet clear answers are still not given. Euthanasia should be seen as a social phenomenon that is taking place today and this phenomenon is very important. In investigation of this problem it is necessary to pay attention on the aspect that each case is unique (Rachels, 27). And in my opinion, whether accept or not accept euthanasia is a purely private matter of each person. It is important to emphasize that euthanasia is also a very delicate issue: each individual case must be investigated by a special commission, which should include a physician, an ethicist and a lawyer. And still this assessment will always be subjective. Neither religion, nor philosophy or medicine can give necessary arguments. Experience shows that the public debates on this subject are drowning in the inability to find mutual understanding of key issues about death and the goal of human life. That is why it comes to be particularly important to create a set of rules for allowing euthanasia, but at the same time to practice individual approach to each case. That is just somebody’s rapid point of view that euthanasia has to be allowed or forbidden; each case is unique. Works Cited 1. Burleigh, Michael. Death and deliverance: “Euthanasia” in Germany, 1900–1945. Taylor & Francis, 1995. 2. Lo, Bernard. (2012) “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: what lessons for elsewhere?”. The Lancet 380:9845, 869-870 3. Meier, D.E. and others. "A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States". Journal of Medicine, June 29. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199804233381706#t=article 4. Putman Michael S. and others. (2013) Intentional Sedation to Unconsciousness at the End of Life: Findings From a National Physician Survey. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 46:3, 326-334 5. Rachels, James. The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality. Oxford University Press, 1986. 6. Rachels, James. “Active and passive euthanasia.” Bioethics: An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice. Pearlman, Jones & Bartlett Learning, 1997. 7. Quill, Timothy E. (2012) "Physicians Should “Assist in Suicide” When It Is Appropriate". The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40:1, 57-65 8. Seale C., Addington-Hall J. “Euthanasia: why people want to die earlier?” Elsevier. September 1994: 647–654 9. Solarino, Biagio and others. (2011) "A national survey of Italian physicians’ attitudes towards end-of-life decisions following the death of Eluana Englaro". Intensive Care Medicine 37:3, 542-549 10. Van der Maas P.J., van Delden J.J.M., Pijnenborg L., Looman C.W.N. "Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life" The Lancet. Septemper 1991: 669-674. Read More