No Justification for Euthanasia in Britain - Essay Example

There is no Justification for Euthanasia in Britain There is no Justification for Euthanasia in Britain You’re Name Institutional Affiliation There is no Justification for Euthanasia in Britain Euthanasia is not an issue that just suddenly became a world wide concern. It has been up for debate for at least a decade now and in Britain, the question is not whether it should be made legal but rather, is there any legitimate justification for it? Psychologically it affects everyone because there can not be one single individual found that has not harbored the thought of euthanasia if they were to be faced with a serious, incurable, excruciating long term illness. The expressed literature that is used to define the aspects of euthanasia is as follows: “The action of inducing a quiet and easy death” which is found in any Oxford English Dictionary (McCoy 2003). The differences between euthanasia and assisted suicide are not that markedly different. The one main variation is that within the realms of assisted suicide drugs are prescribed to the patient which will lead to a peaceful death where as with euthanasia the procedure is done intravenously and normally within a hospital environment. There are several options involving the procedure of euthanasia in Britain and these are shown in the outline included here. Voluntary (requested) Involuntary (beyond patients control) Euthanasia by action (lethal injection) Euthanasia by omission (withholding provisions such as food) (McCoy 2003) Within the country of Ireland there is extreme penalty for any affiliation with an assisted suicide or euthanasia and these guidelines are shown in the below paragraph: A person, who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on a conviction of indictment to prison for a term not exceeding fourteen years 1. Circumstances differ greatly in various areas of the U.K. but there is one point that remains the same every where in the world. Individuals are endowed with guaranteed rights and these rights should not be trespassed against. Therefore, it is the belief of many in society that the right to die should be left up to the competent individual, and neither to the judges nor a medical doctor to make that discussion. In the Netherlands and in Switzerland, euthanasia is a legalized activity although there are still protocols that must be followed and justification for the procedure must be evident. 2 The Swiss Penal Code dictates that: A person who, for selfish motives, persuades or assists another person to commit suicide will be punished with imprisonment for up to five years. However, this law has been used by EXIT, the Swiss society for humane dying to legally assist up to 120 terminally ill patients to die each year by claiming absence of ‘selfish motives’ (McCoy 2003). One specific case which has opened up many debates and raised quite a few questions is the case of a French nurse named, ‘Christine Malervre’. Although she assisted seven of her patients through suicide, the ethical question is whether her actions, and those who do the same, are the actions of serial killers or in actuality are people who care enough about another’s unbearable pain that they are willing to take on the penalties that come with ‘mercy killings’ (McCoy 2003). Britain allows no leniency in these matters and even though Germany, Finland, and Sweden have decreased the time in prison for these actions, Britain has not and does not seem to be swaying from this philosophy. The House of Lords has declared that any forms of assisted suicide, which are found out about, will be punishable to the fullest extent of Britain’s penal system. What astonishes many living in Britain and the surrounding UK about this issue is the fact that the government almost always seems overly eager to place young men and women, in the armed forces, in harms way. They know full and well that this often means the loss of many young and healthy lives. Why then, if there is no penalty for war, why should there be a penalty to those who are simply easing another’s pain and suffering, naturally by request 9 times out of 10? How can there be no justification found within relieving another human beings unbearable anguish yet there can be justification found for every war and every life lost? National Governments should face up to the fact that it is they who have no problems in sending thousands of people to be maimed in war, and spend billions on developing weapons with the sole intention of killing others. What moral justification presides here that differs from the willingness to assisted suicide or euthanasia? (McCoy 2003) It is seriously distressing how the laws in Britain seem unwilling to bend the least little bit in regards to the debate on the right to life and the right to die. Kelly Taylor is only 28 years old yet she has a terminal illness but no rights in which she can say she wishes to die. She had begun a hunger protest in the hope that it would provide some plausibility and consideration into the areas surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide, but they lead no where for the time being (Life News 2005). She has been awaiting a heart and lung transplant for over ten years now, but depressingly there is no hope of finding a match for her and the doctors have also informed her that there is no other medial treatment which they can administer to her that would be of any help. So, why then must she have to suffer? Why is this not enough legal cause to allow her to have the choice to end her life in dignity if that is what she wishes? The intense pain that she is in constantly is what causes her to contemplate taking her life since there is nothing any therapy or medication can do to alleviate her agony. Now, parliament still makes her wait on a decision, until after the electoral process. Where is the justification in that? The law in Britain states there is no justification in euthanasia but patients and those who are suffering along with their loved ones would speak otherwise. The laws allow for logical explanations for so many other unwarranted experiments yet can not allow just a spec of humanity to allow an individual to choose between continuing to live with no hope of beating their illness or choosing to die while their self dignity is still intact. This is neither fair nor just, not in the eyes or minds of many people who live in the UK, nor is it right to many doctors either. First and foremost, a patient suffering from a serious disease deserves the respect and consideration they are owed. To be left to suffer in agony, such as in Taylor’s case, is unjust and morally and ethically wrong. Also, a doctor should be open and willing to discuss the subject of both euthanasia and assisted suicide with his patient, if they are inquiring about it. Therefore, this debate isn’t simply about a doctor providing lethal medication but also about doctor-patient responsibilities and the relationship of the two (Spiegel 2005). It has been well founded that whether or not the practice of euthanasia is legalized in Britain or not, patients seem to be comforted in knowing that it is legal elsewhere and if they were given a choice they would have the right to go to another area and have the procedure done. However, there is some concern that allowing this to be an open topic between a doctor and patient, the patient might take it upon himself to question the doctor’s authority on the issue of euthanasia. In fact, some patients have been known to demand a prescription from their doctor and in this regard, this is overstepping the boundaries of the patient-doctor relationship, whether terminally ill and in constant pain or not. There are ethical questions to be considered not only legally but medically as well. Some in the medical field claim the perception that many give pause to from this is that, “If a physician could save a life, and, on the other hand, could end a life, it would create an ambiguity in the duty of the physician” (Spiegel 2005). Even a percentage of patients agree to this theorization that this type of discussion on an issue so existent with life and death, could actually damage the trust between that of the patient and doctor. Still, the fact remains that the patient has the right to have their questions answered and also has the right to know of their alternatives elsewhere. If a physician follows an implemented guideline when discussing this topic, then the level of trust should be able to be maintained. Some of the questions the doctor could ask himself, in regards to the patient seeking information on euthanasia are: Why is this patient asking for help Why is this patient expressing this desire at this present time Is the request understandable given the patients condition and quality of life Does the patients expressed motives provide for treatment responses that better serve his or her needs Does the patient actually want to die or is he or she using the request for some other purpose (Spiegel 2005). It is common knowledge that the practice or thought of euthanasia affects the physician just as much as the patient. There is no law in Britain that states doctors can not discuss information about euthanasia with patients so therefore, legally, they have a right to all of this inside information. Also, as was stated, following the guidelines and then discussing the specific issue at hand, will keep a strong patient-doctor relationship. Although the theory of euthanasia can be discussed in Britain, it does not change the fact that the laws forbid its occurrence as time and time again people have been indicted for being involved in assisted suicide and euthanasia by abetting or aiding or simply discussing it with them. In that regard, doctors have to be very careful with how they word their sentences and the information that their words are relaying. For example, Julianne Zsiors was arrested on sufficient evidence for the death of Linda Whetung who died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Parliament accused Zsiros of counseling as well as aiding Whetung’s suicide. The outcome of her trial will not be known for a few weeks but again, this shows that Britain simply is not wavering on their stance against euthanasia, no matter what the circumstances are surrounding it (International Task Force 2003). On the other hand of this issue, there are some medical experts who have a differing opinion when euthanasia is in regard to elderly people specifically (Templeton 2004). Some medical experts believe it to be in the frail and elderly’s best interests to commit suicide rather than to become a burden on society. According to the structure within the Mental Capacity Bill, there are those that insinuate this bill allows for the possibility of euthanasia. Although it would not be justifiable in any legal framework, it still could be carried out. Barones Warnock claims that she herself would not want to be a burden on others when she becomes old so it is assumed that she is ultimately saying other elderly people feel this way as well (Templeton 2004). One of her statements she made is as follows: “In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one’s family would be considered good. I don’t see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance” (Templeton 2004). Her claims seem illogical because simply though she herself feels this way does not mean others do. To look at life in this manner is simply incoherent because all of us are going to get old one day and it does not mean simply because a person gets old they become a burden. They are still people and should be considered to have their own opinion as to how worth while they feel their life is. She also has a cruel way of looking at the life of preemie babies who are on life support. Her theory is that, if the parents want to sustain life for their baby, which a doctor has deemed is not going to progress into a healthy infant, and then they should have to cover all expenses and not place any burden on society (Templeton 2004). What is appalling is the influence this woman has on legislation in Britain. She would like a review on euthanasia for all the wrong reasons. And to think, innocent doctors and others assisting those in their release from suffering are being indicted while someone with her mentality is allowed an authority over man kind’s decisions in life and death just does not seem right. There are some serious issues at hand that need to be taken into account in all four corners of the legal and medical spectrums with regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, she does have some good quality points as well and these do find favor with many people. Her husband was enabled the right to choose to die through euthanasia by the means of an overdose of morphine. This was due to an incurable lung problem that he had, had. Now the question is, if people in power can have the right to choose between life and death, why then can every day citizens not have the same rights? There is no justice in this either. Furthermore, in regards to those who are opposing the laws Britan has implemented now, there are many cases springing forth that provide the justification needed to alter Britain’s current legislation in concern of this issue. Yet, nothing has been changed what so ever except for those in powerful positions somehow gaining the right to choose life or death for themselves or their loved ones while everyday people are left out in the cold. The following examples provide a broader insight into the need for this alternative in the UK. In Liverpool, England, Jane Healy has publicly voiced her stance on the choice of euthanasia and assisted suicide versus prolonged suffering for no logical purpose. She states that she will assist her father’s suicide being that he is terminally ill, with no hope of any further medical intervention that would benefit him. Her father, Reginald Crew suffers from motor neuron disease and is in such pain that he has stated if the UK can not change their laws to at least allow him the right to choose how to die then he plans to travel abroad and become a member of the ‘Zurich Euthanasia Society Dignitas’ (James 2003). The disease of which he suffers from is totally dehabilitating. The reason in behind his decision to choose euthanasia is the fact that eventually he soon won’t be able to speak and he wants to be free to choose to die with his dignity and self respect still intact before that happens. He knows once he loses that personal ability then his decisions are ultimately not his to make any longer and he does not want to place himself as a burden on his wife or his daughter. “Everyday is getting harder and harder on me, and this is my last chance. I’m frightened of living, not of dying” (James 2003). The fact that nurses have had him view videotapes to make him aware of how the disease progresses and how it will eventually over take him has not helped him in even considering the possibility of continuing to live versus choosing to die. He knows his preference and that is to ease his suffering now and take advantage of what abilities he still has to exercise his rights. For him, there is just no hope, as well as for many others in similar circumstances, and because of this his mentality is one that tells him there is just no logical explanation to even try any longer. He is not alone in that type of thinking; because there is other people suffering with severe terminal illnesses that feel the say way and their lives for them are nothing but burdens to themselves and to others around them, at least that is how they feel. But they can do nothing about it within the laws of the UK and so many are flying abroad so they do have the opportunity to exercise their rights and power to choose. What Parliament should already have realized and have taken into account, on many of these cases, is the concept that if there is not treatment, no reliable pain medication or therapy, no way to improve the quality of life that the individual once had, then they should have that option to end their life if that is their wish. Parliament should recognize this and not pass laws that state you don’t have the right to choose to live or die if you’re terminally ill. That is unjustified and again, unfair. This is especially true when there is evidence that others have been utilizing euthanasia right within the confines of the UK but yet have had no penalty to pay for doing so. Where is the fairness? What Parliament is causing is people actually begging for the right to have a choice over their life; no one should have to beg anyone for this right. While they wait, they are being left to suffer unmercifully and left to question why there is no humane privilege in regards to your own body and life. Mr. Crew’s daughter’s view and statement on this issue is included in this literature which can be found in the following paragraph: I don’t think people should really have to go abroad to these places, where they have to go through all the discomfort of flying over there to die in a foreign place. This country needs to do something about our own laws on how we deal with terminal illness. I know it sounds awful to say, but if you had an animal lying on the floor and it couldn’t do anything for itself, you wouldn’t leave it there, you would put it out of its misery. Everyone should have a choice really and you are not given that in this country. Many people will oppose it but it all depends on the individual and varying circumstances in their medical situation (James 2003). These are very good points and extremely justifiable to allow the right to choose. It’s not right that a government has that type of power over another living soul. The arguments are clear and to the point, people want their life to be in their control and there is nothing wrong with that. However, how long is it going to take the British Government to recognize that and do the right thing by the people of its country? It is so sad to know that thousands of terminally ill people leave the UK just to have to go and die somewhere else; far away from the land they have known all their life. There is no justification yet again in this. Some people say there is no justification in allowing euthanasia in Britain, well, where is the humanity and justification in allowing people to suffer unbearably for know well founded reason? This is prolonging their pain and again, there are no moral values found in this type of behavior. The main concept here is that all people should be treated with equal fairness and equable rights, especially when it comes down to the right to live or die. It is a personal choice and government can not make it for anyone, yet they are doing so. Reference List: International Task Force (2003) ‘Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide’ Vol.17. No.1 James, Deborah (2003) ‘Let My Father die with Dignity: Daughter Calls for Change in UK Law on Euthanasia’ Liver Pool Daily Post, p.1 Life News (2005) ‘British Woman Ends Hunger Protest to Legalize Assisted Suicide’ Retrieved from: http://www.lifenews.com/nat1538.html Accessed 15 December 2005 McCoy, Calvin (2003) ‘To Die or Not to Die: That is the Question’ European Politics, The Thunderer Retrieved from: http://www.politics.tcd.ie/courses/undergrad/BCPOL/thunderer/europe/europe_detail_3.htm Accessed on 16 December 2005 Spiegel, Nadine (2005) ‘Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide’ Penn Bioethics Journal, Vol 1 pp 1-3 Templeton, Sarah-Kate (2004) ‘Better for Old to Kill Themselves than to be a Burden’ Retrieved from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1400140,00.html Accessed on 16 December 2005 Read More