Passive euthanasia is easier for people to accept. Even though euthanasia is illegal, the practice exists widely.
Euthanasia can either be voluntary or involuntary. Involuntary euthanasia is in which the patient for example, a severely deformed baby is unable to express his own wishes about the matter and therefore the responsibility lies within society or someone with authority, for deciding to terminate life. This is an unacceptable concept for most people. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests to have their life ended.
One begins to think about euthanasia as a death channel when the pain outweighs the joys of life. Euthanasia can be traced back to the Roman civilisation and ancient Greeks, where one was allowed to help another die. [ref. Soft1]. The practice has been with us for ages and views have changed about it since the various religions have come by. Many religions view life as a precious gift and very sacred, believing no one has the right to take it away, except the one who gave it i.e. God.
Many people support euthanasia. They believe that people with incurable illnesses should have the right to die with dignity and respect. Euthanasia in such cases is thought of as the only humane thing to do. Euthanasia gives the freedom from the guilt, of being a big responsibility on families and carers. Despite new surgical techniques and modern medicine, people still die. When the time comes people hope passing both mentally and physically is as comfortable as possible. For example, when a loved pet is diagnosed with an incurable disease, the best action would be to have it put down at the vet, as that would seem the most sensible decision to make. If an animal in such pain can be put down, should a terminally ill patient be treated in the same way? Would it be the right decision to accelerate death painlessly when it is clear that a person’s life is nearing its end?
Relating back to the article, researchers have found that euthanasia results less severe symptoms of depression and stress for families who have lost their loved ones. [ref.Web1]
Richard Chinn, a hospital worker saw great purple grape-like masses hanging on the chin of a patient who had been diagnosed with cancer, the masses being cancerous growth. Whenever the patient would eat, the food was collected in the cancerous tumour. When the tumour was as large as a tennis ball, the doctors would amputate it. However this was just a continuous process. The patient was not at ease and requested for euthanasia. He was told the word “NO” by the doctors and the courts. According to Chinn the patient eventually came down with pneumonia; he was not revived and passed away. If euthanasia were legalised, then the patient would have been able to end the pain earlier.
Jack Kevorkian, was convicted of first-degree murder, in March 1999. The retired pathologist will spend 10-25 years in prison. He injected a deadly medicine into a man named Thomas Youk. Kevorkian also assisted several other unfortunate people die condition being they took the drugs themselves. His actions were illegal, but is the idea of ending suffering wrong? [ref. Web2]
Oregon, a state of America has legalised euthanasia, however guidelines have been set. The main one being that procedure of euthanasia must be requested by the patient and that they should take the deadly dosage themselves. Only 43 people have taken advantage of the law since it was legalised in 1997.
On the other hand, there are many people who are against euthanasia and the legalisation of it. The opposition is mainly due to religious and moral issues. The religious perspective is that the life of a human being is sacred and suffering is an important part in every human beings life. From the moral point of view active euthanasia is considered as an act of murder, because by definition it is the intentional decision taken by one human being to take the life of another.
From a medical perspective euthanasia can be contradicting, as a doctors main objective is to save lives and not to end them. Modern medicine has the ability to control pain. Suffering can be alleviated medically in most cases i.e. cancer suffers can take morphine to ease the pain. Terminally ill patients who wish to end their lives are depressed; psychotherapy is available to help them to deal with the depression. Asking for euthanasia is commonly thought to be a cry for help, which can be dealt through counselling. There is always a possibility that an incorrect diagnosis is given to the patient, in which case the patient wouldn’t endure any suffering and wouldn’t even need to think of euthanasia as an option.
There maybe cases where doctors can take advantage of the patient’s ill health, encouraging euthanasia for financial benefit. The same can be said for carers, etc.
Some may argue that only voluntary active euthanasia should be legalised, but this may lead to the legalisation of non-voluntary euthanasia. People would begin to fear hospitals by being given a false diagnosis and subjected to non-voluntary euthanasia. In this country there is already a problem with the NHS in terms of beds available for patients. This could put increased pressure on doctors to encourage euthanasia, to free up beds that have been taken by ill-fated patients.
Involuntary euthanasia could be against the wishes of the patients, or that the patient may not even be aware of euthanasia being performed. There is also always the chance that new medicines and cures will be available in the future and where euthanasia is encouraged, it may be too late.
Referring back to the article, the families of patients who lose their lives as a result of euthanasia are given counselling before and after the death of the patient. This is in order to prepare themselves for the loss of the loved ones. [ref. Web1]
Through a democratic vote within the Netherlands euthanasia was made legal since 1983. It is believed that the considerable rise in the overall death rate is most likely to be due to the legalisation of euthanasia. [ref. Web2 ]
By looking at the support of both sides of the discussion it seems that the arguments against euthanasia outweighs the arguments for legalisation.
There are consequences that can arise if euthanasia is legalised, such as doctors abusing their power, new medicines being found and people encouraging it due to financial gains are far too great to chance. Referring back to the article, which determines how strong the symptoms of grief and stress are, it may make it easier for the families and close friends. But is it fair to persuade the patients to end their lives? Given the chance that new medicines could cure them and give them a chance to lead a normal life. Eliminating the people facing the problems cannot solve the problems. The more difficult and humane solution to human suffering is to address the problems.
Software
Comptons Complete Reference Collection
Publisher: Comptons Complete Reference Collection the learning company
{ref. Soft1}
Websites
BBC ¦ Health ¦ Euthanasia grief less severe
Article published 24th July 2003
[Accessed 31st October 2003]
{ref. Web1}
BBC ¦ Health ¦ US mercy killing ‘not a crime’
Article published 23rd March 1999
[Accessed article 1st November 2003]
{ref. Web2}
Books
WORDSWORTH REFERENCE ¦ The Wordsworth Encyclopaedia
Published 1995 ¦ Volume 2 chubu-grig ¦ Page 765
{ref. Book1}