In past such cases were seen in which euthanasia was performed with the help of a physician. In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, a 17 year old boy Antony Bland was in a permanent vegetative state from 1989 to 1993 after the Hillsborough football stadium disaster in 1989. The NHS hospital trust and his parents asked the High Court for the permission to withdraw the artificial nutrition and hydration that was keeping him alive which was allowed by the High Court and the House of Lords. Whereas in Pretty v United Kingdom Mrs Dianne pretty who was suffering from a degenerative and incurable illness wanted her husband to her help her commit suicide. She brought proceedings in House of Lords first and then the European Court of Human Rights that if her husband helps her to commit suicide, he should not be charged under the section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 but it was refused by both House of Lords and ECHR. She later died suffering from the disease. Nevertheless, it has been argued that legalising euthanasia will have some benefits but it will have some serious harm as well.
There are many arguments against the legalization of euthanasia. ‘Legalization would inevitably generate abuses, cases in which people’s lives were intentionally ended when they should not have been because they were coerced, or because appropriate palliative measures were not provided.’ In some cases, families of the ill patients feel overburden by providing personal care and the finances for the medication, this make them to assert pressure on the patient for using euthanasia even if he does not want to die. The legalisation of euthanasia would also provide too much power to doctors and it can make a doctor negligent and careless. ‘It is suggested that permitting doctors to decide that some lives do not deserve care is not only immoral but highly dangerous and that it will lead to the trust between patients and their doctors being eroded’. Also sometimes doctors can diagnose their patients improperly which might pressurise the patient to request euthanasia. Moreover, the lawfulness of euthanasia is argued from the religious aspect also as it is believed that God has given life and he has the only power to take it. It is also believed that a patient who knows euthanasia as an option suffers from depression and psychological symptoms which led him to think about requesting euthanasia.
Conversely, there are arguments relating to the benefits of legalising euthanasia. The first benefit for legalizing is that it can end an individual’s life peacefully and with dignity. It includes autonomy, self-determination and responsibility. The patient can select his mode of death independently without any depression. The second argument is that it helps a patient to get relief of pain and suffering. Legalising Euthanasia would allow a patient to die without any extra suffering of the disease as it will relieve unremitting and excruciating pain. In addition, psychological reassurance is provided that is patients knowing that euthanasia were possible alternatives if their dying was too painful and it also saves money which is spent on the hopeless and useless medical treatment. Besides, the family members would be prepared for the sorrows because they already know that their beloved one is going to die.
In conclusion, if euthanasia is not permitted, some patients experiencing unremitting pain will be prevented from ending their lives and will suffer needlessly. The factors point towards the need to address the situation of distress as many patients daily suffer from the extreme level of pain. However, it can also increase the abuse and stringent safeguards would not eliminate the potential for abuse. Therefore, the process of euthanasia should be allowed with certain legal formalities and only with the permission of patients who suffer from an extra level of pain.
Bibliography
E J Emanuel, ‘What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physician-Assisted Suicide’ Ethics, Vol 109, No.3 (1999, The University of Chicago Press)
I H Dennis, Criminal law statutes (2003 Sweet and Maxwell)
J Coggon, ‘Could the Right to Die with Dignity Represent a New Right to Die in English Law?’ [2006] Med Law Rev 14 (219)
NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821
Pretty v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 2346/02
S Evans and D Hewitt, ‘A choice of question’ [2006] 156 NLJ 44
United Kingdom Parliament, ‘Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill’ <> accessed 1st March 2008
E J Emanuel, ‘What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physician-Assisted Suicide’ Ethics (US April 1999) 629
I H Dennis, Criminal law statutes (Sweet and Maxwell London 2003) 31-32
United Kingdom Parliament, ‘Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill’ <> accessed 1st March 2008
S Evans and D Hewitt, ‘A choice of question’ (2006) 156 NLJ 44
E J Emanuel (n 1) 637-638
United Kingdom Parliament (n 3)
J Coggon, ‘Could the Right to Die with Dignity Represent a New Right to Die in English Law?’ (2006) Med Law Rev 14 (219)
E J Emanuel (n 1) 631-640
