One of the most important public debating topics nowadays is the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide. As every particular issue in the world, pros and contras arise due to this controversial matter. Some nations accept the act of euthanasia and assisted suicide legally and morally by stating them in their law. Conversely, some organization, independent social and conservative religious communities, and other countries strictly affirmed their acts against everything about euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The executions of such acts have been widely spread all around the world, because of several reasons or excuses. Moreover, some cases are brought to the adjudication. However, the criminology of euthanasia and assisted suicide still becomes a hot subtopic in every deliberation and discussion.
Some arguments may convey an acceptance of the act of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Unbearable pain, rights to commit suicide, and the opinion about people that should not be forced to be alive, are some motives that support the argumentative thought of those who agree with euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, intensive research and philosophical study also give several reasons why euthanasia and assisted suicide are considered unethical.
Euthanasia, also often called as mercy killing, comes from eu, which means beautiful, good, or gracefully and with dignity, and thanatos, that means dies. Etymologically, euthanasia can be understood as die gracefully and with dignity. Some sources say that euthanasia is the practice of voluntarily having a medically-assisted death. Some articles also state that euthanasia is the term used for the practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. In addition, The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as the action of killing an individual for reasons considered to be merciful. All of those references imply that euthanasia and assisted suicide acts must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide.
Euthanasia is divided into several types, which are:
• Passive euthanasia (Hastening the death of a person by altering some form of support and letting nature take its course. For instance, removing life support equipment, stopping medical procedures, medications, etc)
• Active Euthanasia (This involves causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person.)
• Involuntary euthanasia (The term used to describe the killing of a person who has not explicitly requested aid in dying, most often done to patients who are in a Persistent Vegetative State and will probably never recover consciousness.)
Euthanasia is different from assisted suicide. Both of them are distinguished from the last act, the act without which death will not occur. If the act is done by a third party that on purpose causing the patient’s death, it is considered as euthanasia. For example, giving a lethal injection to the patient or putting a plastic bag to wrap up the patient’s head to suffocate him/her. If the last act is done voluntarily by the patient, then the term assisted suicide is used. In this case, the term Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is used. The example of this act is the patient who drinks the drugs that have been prepared by the doctor which could cause him/her death. Another example is the patient that presses a switch that triggers a fatal injection after the doctor has put an injection needle through the patient’s vein.
Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are judged as legal in some countries such as Oregon, Netherlands, and Belgium. Their juridical law specifically states the legalization of the acts. Oregon legalizes the act of euthanasia, while Netherlands and Belgium give legal permission of both acts practices. Due to the reason of performing actions against the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, some organizations that oppose them did some research and philosophical studies in ethics point of view, showing that euthanasia and assisted suicide are unethical.
The first reason why euthanasia and assisted suicide are unethical they are more about the right to kill instead of the right to die. Ethically, euthanasia and assisted suicide should be done only on patient’s request. However, one major goal of euthanasia supporters is to make euthanasia and assisted suicide considered as medical treatment. In US, a representative decision is often made as if the patient had made it. This means that, if euthanasia is legal, a court challenge could result in a finding that the patient’s representative could make a request for death on behalf of a child or an adult who are not able to make such decision. In the Netherlands, a survey sponsored by the government demonstrates that 0.8% of all deaths in the Netherlands were euthanasia deaths that happened without a direct request from the patient. Furthermore, in 1995, Dutch doctors reported ending the lives of 948 patients in the same condition.
Suppose that the patient’s representatives were not permitted to make the decision for the patient and that doctors did not end patients’ lives without their request. Some fact still remains that, even unintended, pressure would still be unavoidable. One of the facts is the case of an elderly woman who died under Oregon’s assisted suicide law:
Kate Cheney, 85, had been suffering from early dementia. After she was diagnosed with cancer, her own physician declined to provide a lethal prescription for her. Counseling was needed to determine if she was capable of making health care decisions.
A psychiatrist found that Mrs. Cheney was illegible for assisted suicide since she was not explicitly pushing for it, her daughter seemed to be coaching her to do so, and she couldn’t remember important names and details of even a recent hospital where she stayed.
Mrs. Cheney was then taken to a psychologist who said she was competent but possibly under the influence of her daughter. Finally, an ethicist who was overseeing her case determined that she was qualified for assisted suicide, and the lethal drugs were prescribed.
In fact, the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about giving rights to the person to end their own life because of their terminal illness. Instead, they are about changing public policy so that doctors or others can directly and intentionally end or participate in ending patient’s life.
The second reason that supports the contras of euthanasia illegalization is because it does not guarantee the certain patients can die peacefully, without any pain. The legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide only allows the use of plastic bags and carbon monoxide to kill vulnerable people. Some medical people said only lethal injection or suffocation with a plastic bag could ensure death. Other medical treatment for euthanasia and assisted suicide like using pills is illegible because it could cause complication.
In Netherlands, for many years, the Royal Dutch Association of Pharmacy has provided prescribing guidelines to prevent problems as well as to increase the efficiency of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Nevertheless, there are still a number of complications and problems occurred (lethal injections often caused violent convulsions and muscle contractions).
After Patrick Matheny received his lethal dose of drugs from the Oregon Health Sciences University via Federal Express, he delayed taking them for four months. On the day of his death, he experienced difficulty. His brother in law, Joe Hayes, said he had to “help” Matheny die. According to Hayes, “It doesn’t go smoothly for everyone. For Pat, it was a huge problem. It would not have worked without help”.
Even Dutch euthanasia activists admit these difficulties, stating in their own euthanasia society publication that, there are problems of complications in one out of five case of euthanasia or assisted suicide.
The fact that euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life become the next reason why it should not be legalized. The euthanasia devotees often said that it is permissible to take human life under some circumstances such as self defense. However, they miss the point that in such thing called as self defense, when one kills another, there are innocent life to be saved, either their own life or someone else’s. In euthanasia, obviously, no one’s life is being saved. Likewise, euthanasia also deceives the most natural and basic ethical instinct that human has; instinct to live. Euthanasia throws away the human needs to live and survive. Instead, it influences someone to end their live.
Another reason is that euthanasia quite the contrary from most people opinion, about it becoming the only way to relieve excruciating pain.
During a radio debate, T. Patrick Hill (the board of directors of the New York Citizens’ Committee on Health Care Decisions) stated that continuing to prohibit euthanasia would, in some circumstances, abandon the patient to a horrifying death. He acknowledged that even under the best circumstances active euthanasia is indeed a troubling issue. But he said, “I do think there are very restricted circumstances where, in fact, it is the more humane thing to do rather than not to do. Because, not to do it would, as I say, be to abandon the patient to unbearable suffering, whether emotional suffering or physical suffering.”
Such claim fails to recognize that generally all pain can be eliminated or reduced significantly by providing proper treatment. Indeed, sometimes there are some national and international scandals that so many people do not get enough pain control. However, killing, or euthanasia is not the answer for them. The solution is to hold better education of health care professionals on these crucial issues, to expand access to health care, and to inform patients about their rights as consumers.
Theologically, euthanasia also often has been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Particularly, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach. Islam categorically forbids and refuses all forms of suicide and any action that may help others to kill themselves. In Bhuddism, a monk or nun would be expelled from Buddhist monastic community if they assist others in their death includes circumstances of the terminally ill patients. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider euthanasia as sinful acts.
All previous reasons from all difference points of view have depicted the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only three countries in the world today where it is legal. Some real cases also bear those reasons that surely affirm why euthanasia should not be legalized. Almost all societies, even non-religious ones, have refused the legalization of euthanasia, and likewise, consider it as a crime. It is interesting to wait for the development of the issues, on how it will potentially give more influence to all aspects of human life in the future.
Bibliography:
Arguments Against Euthanasia. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Euthanasia.com: http://www.euthanasia.com
Euthanasia. (2007, December 5). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.com
Facts and Ethics Behind Euthanasia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://www.cyberessays.com/
Free Argumentative Essays: The Ethics of Euthanasia. (2007 , Dec ember 4). Retrieved December 2, 2007, from 123HelpMe.com: http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp
Gormally, L. (1997). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Seven Reasons Why They Should Not Be Legalized . Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Euthanasia.com.
Rita L. Marker, Kathi Hamlon. (n.d.). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
Robinson, B. A. (2002, December 7). EUTHANASIA AND PHYSICAL ASSISTED SUICIDE:Introduction. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm
Robinson, B. A. (2001, November 19). EUTHANASIA AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE: Further Information. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm
Wibudi, A. (2002, May). EUTHANASIA. Retrieved December 5, 2007
