Should Voluntary Euthanasia be allowed in Hong Kong?

The patient has an incorruptible right to his own life. How come that he has so many rights to freedom, pursuit of happiness, to his own life, that he may not take it? A person may take the life of another who wilfully and physically threatens his or her life in self-defence, yet it is against the law to attack oneself to preserve the very last shred of dignity one has or in pursuit of one's happiness: a quality of life that one deems gratifying. Which, in the case of PVS or the terminally ill and suffer from chronic pain, may, in all connotations, imply the absence of agony.

It is also in the benefit for the family if a patient is allowed to commit euthanasia because by prolonging the patients life would cause the family greater pain and agony, trying to live through the day desperately clinging on to thinning shreds of hope. It would also cause pain to see a loved family member lying on a hospital bed inanimate, feeble, and helpless - there definitely would be some doubt whether there is really any purpose in sustaining the hollow shell of a body further. It is a fact that in North America, 40% of passive euthanasia is performed after protracted, agonizing indecision on part of family members and physicians. Family would also be at ease of mind that the patient died peacefully in sleep rather than an agonizing, lingering and unduly painful semi-existence. It is known statistically from research that many patients die excessively painful deaths due to the ignorance, lack of experience or training in physicians and the lack in medical technology and better drugs to be administered as well as monetary costs. The family would also be financially better off because of the termination protecting assets from large medical expenses incurred by approaching death.

Then apart from the patient's rights and a family's well being, the downsides and consequences must also be considered. Some downsides of legalising voluntary euthanasia includes deception of the physician or the patient into performing euthanasia in order for some benefit to befall e.g. a large sum insurance and the swindler as beneficiary. Other problems that arise from legalising euthanasia would be the control on what types of terminal illness is imminent eventual death or how to determine when the patient is really going to die and whether he or she does have a potentially fulfilling life ahead. Some doctors may even take situations into their own hands and prescribe medication that would result in the death of the patient without them ever indicating that they wanted termination which is outright murder. Also, interpretations of things the patient suggests can also open loopholes in the law which must be prevented in cases such as the patient declaring, "if I'm terminally ill, the only medical treatment I want is comfort care" and to some, comfort care may mean a good environment and good food until your life ceases to be, but to some, it may mean a quick dose of carbon monoxide to end your suffering - and it is these interpretations which could cause a lot of problems if the law is passed, therefore it should only be preformed under strictly controlled circumstances and there must be certain procedures (e.g. advanced directive such as living wills or a proxy) to make each individual suicide legal acting like a crime proof barrier, if the patient does not apply for euthanasia, and if it is committed, it is a crime on the physician's behalf. If the patient willingly undergoes the application, it serves to prove that it is his will and it is not all part of a murder scheme. Of course, if a patient is threatened between death at gunpoint and euthanasia, I would advise them to go to the police and place attempted murder charges rather than go apply for euthanasia. Also, diagnosis of terminal illness must be performed by two doctors (one being be a consultant) and should only be concluded if they are both concordant.

Other downsides to legalising euthanasia is that it allows people to become more prone to suicide for example, people who are severely depressed may look to euthanasia as a permanent solution to a temporary problem when they are not really incurable or some healthy people may even consider euthanasia if they are "tired of life". Such situations could be avoided that if the doctor suspects that the patient suffers from depression, he should be sent for psychiatric evaluation and the written request for euthanasia or physician assisted euthanasia to be doubled and written with a period of at least 15 days in between.

I am opposed to active euthanasia because I believe that without a concrete proof of the wishes of the patient, that his or her life should be sustained indefinitely until nature calls, but advocate to voluntary euthanasia as it is well within the rights of the patient to decide what's best for him and to consider the emotional and financial impacts upon his family. I emphasise that euthanasia and active euthanasia must not be accepted as good medical treatment because this places the right to kill in physician's hands for if the notion is accepted it would not only be inappropriate, but discriminatory, to deny this 'good' treatment to a patient solely because that person is too young or mentally incapacitated to request it. Properly regulated voluntary euthanasia protects the patient from abuse and ensures that the decision to end his life is made openly, honestly and voluntarily by the patient. Legalising euthanasia in Hong Kong will allow the terminally ill and comatose, through different pathways, to obtain a dignified and peaceful end.