“In 1935 a group of doctors, lawyers and churchmen, set up the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
Their aim was to make it legal for a competent adult, who is suffering unbearably from an incurable illness, to receive medical help to die at their own, considered and persistent request.” [www.ves.org.uk accessed 28/10/01]. However, there are two types of euthanasia these being Passive and Active. Let us first talk about euthanasia in the sense of active euthanasia, this is giving a drug such as potassium chloride to end a person’s life. This would be classed as helping to kill someone and would be classed as murder. Passive Euthanasia on the other hand is where doctors can take away or withhold treatment from a patient, even if that person will die as a result. However, a doctor cannot directly or actively help a person to die, for example they cannot give anyone a lethal injection. Nevertheless “The Voluntary Euthanasia Society argue that in situations where a competent person, who is terminally ill, is asking for help to die, passive euthanasia has the same moral and practical result as giving a lethal injection at the patients request.” [www.ves.org.uk accessed 28/10/01]
Along with the above points many people do not want to spend the last days or weeks of their life in a way, which, to them is undignified. They often ask for active euthanasia i.e. assisted suicide at patient request. The voluntary euthanasia society have pointed out that they do not wish to introduce anything like the Nazi euthanasia programme. That is to say, they insist that they do not wish to see non-voluntary euthanasia introduced, they do not wish to see patients being helped to die unless they have requested it.
To illustrate, and lend weight to the case put forward by V.E.S. in October this year a 42year old woman called Mrs Diane Pretty from Luton, lost her case in the high court in London for her husband to assist her to die. Mrs Pretty was diagnosed with Motor Neurone disease in 1999 and since her diagnosis her condition has deteriorated rapidly.
She is now unable to do anything functional for herself. Although this woman is in complete control of her mental faculties and has chosen to die at home with her family around her, at a time of her own preference, under the British Laws she cannot have her family assist her to commit suicide. Should her husband assist her he would be prosecuted.
However, there are some people who believe that life is sacred and that no one has the right to purposely take a life. These are religious people who follow this principle, and therefore do not agree with suicide and assisted dying. Nevertheless “In the Netherlands, Catholic or Dutch reformed clergymen may be present at assisted deaths.” [www.ves.org.uk accessed 28/10/01] Also it should be remembered that religious arguments should not apply to anyone who does not share that belief.
Those who believe euthanasia should remain a criminal act, believe that to decriminalise it is a very slippery slope as voluntary euthanasia will soon lead to involuntary euthanasia, as once we have made voluntary euthanasia legal, society will allow involuntary euthanasia. This idea being based on the idea that if the law was to allow a person to help somebody to die, we would not be able to monitor its practice. This is misleading and inaccurate as voluntary euthanasia is based on the right to choose and make a request, for yourself. It is very different from involuntary euthanasia. There is no evidence to suggest that strictly controlled, voluntary euthanasia would inevitably lead to the killing of the sick or elderly against their will. Indeed the majority of the British medical association are in favour of voluntary living wills, which would act as an additional safeguard for the sick and vulnerable.
Some people who do not agree with euthanasia argue that if it were legalised, it would damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute. Even for those with religious beliefs, killing in war or in self-defence is justified by most, as is capital punishment too.
In conclusion this essay has explained why Euthanasia should be decriminalised by mentioning the case for Mrs Diana Pretty, and against irrational and emotive beliefs for example the religious beliefs that it is a sin to kill, even though they allow killing to take place in war, self-defence and capital punishment. If an animal where to be in pain then, indeed the same religious people would feel they had a moral duty to put it to sleep. After all, compassion is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. In some foreign countries especially Holland [in the last two weeks] euthanasia is allowed to take place so surely it is time for our government to revise the law and allow voluntary euthanasia.
References: -
accessed 28/10/01
GAINED LEVEL 3 ON 15/1/02
