Compassion is used by euthanasists to appeal to society’s sense of morality. Questioning the right for a dignified and painless death by those who wish to die, the key argument is that it is cruel to deny people who are in great pain and whose death is inevitable, a dignified death when appealed for it. In Rights of Terminally Ill Act 1995(NT), ads were portrayed to indicate euthanasia as a kind act to people who are suffering on the brink of death, creating widespread support.
However the notion of patients suffering extreme pain is contrary to findings that illustrate that patients’ main reasons for ending their lives were not because of intolerable pain but rather, loss of dignity. In fact 95% of cases of terminally ill patients pain can be overcome, while in the 5 % it can be to some extent, relieved. The Remme link report in 1992 highlights less than 5% of patients claim intolerable pain as the reason for the request to be euthanized. Studies show that main loss of independence and loneliness are the main reason for ending life, this is seen in recent Oregon data where in the year 2000, 93% of those requesting to be euthanized claimed it as the chief reason. In the case of Pretty v United Kingdom, Pretty tries to overturn British euthanasia law using the Human Rights Act, Mrs Pretty’s QC alleged she was facing a humiliating and degrading death which would be "distressing and undignified". She took her legal challenge all the way to the European Court of Human Rights with the desire to be remembered as “someone who respects the law and asked in turn that the law respects me”. Her case however was not successful in fulfilling her wish but was successful in showing an example of how one might perceive the law as a restriction and how one’s moral ideas differ to the legal system, a representative of the majority. Euthanasia is not seen as being consistent with societal norms, so the issue of suffering is preferred to be treated with palliative care. In all areas of human activities causing death is not viewed as a satisfactory solution for dealing with individuals who for one reason or another find themselves in extreme or difficult situations. Vast public resources are devoted towards tackling the under lying problem and all other avenues are exhausted before killing.
Another argument supported by euthanasists is that although euthanasia is lawfully prohibited in Australia the reality is the practise does exists within the state and outside in the form of death tourism. While assisted suicide remains unlawful in Australia, other states have legislated to permit assisted suicide in carefully controlled circumstance. Vast majority of state restrict it to their own residents but Switzerland is a notable exception in that it permits outside nationals to visit and avail themselves of facilities offering assisted suicide. In the case Re Z (local authority: duty) created a precedent by allowing Mrs Z to travel to Switzerland to be euthanized different to the Pretty v UK in that the assisted death is within a controlled environment overseas in Switzerland instead of assisted death by her husband . After she was psychologically tested and shown to have the mental competence to decide for herself, she was able to travel to Switzerland to die. In a Postal survey by Khuse , Singer, Baume , Clark and Rickard of Australian doctors in July 1996 published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1997. They compared results with the Netherland a country similar to Australia except that euthanasia was legal. The proportion of all Australian deaths that resulted from voluntary euthanasia was about 1.8% , 0.1% were from physician assisted suicide and the proportion of all deaths resulting from non voluntary euthanasia was 3.5%. A recent survey by Douglas et al. revealed even higher levels of voluntary and non voluntary euthanasia. While in the Netherlands a survey by the government committee headed by PJ van der Maas reported that in 1990 approximately 1.7% of all deaths were the result of voluntary euthanasia and the 0.2% was the result of physician-assisted suicide. Additionally there were 1000 cases (which amounted to 0.8% of all deaths) of non-voluntary euthanasia-death were patients were intentionally killed without the patient’s request.
Not only does the results show that Euthanasia still exists in Australia where euthanasia is illegal but a small percentage of patients are terminated without consent. Leading to anti euthanasia supporters to point out the consequence of legalising euthanasia, claiming euthanasia creates a path to other immoral practises.
There are two key of arguments against Euthanasia, one is that euthanasia is wrong because of its interference with basic human rights and euthanasia is wrong due to incidental bad consequences which flow from it.
The sanctuary of life argument sees life as precious and should be preserved. The fact that it is so important is the foundation for the argument of the right to life. The right to life is the most fundamental and basic in all human rights. Right to life is enshrined in several international covenants. For example the international covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 6 and the European Convention on Human rights(ECHR), article 2 (which was brought into force in the UK by the human rights act 1998) which provided that everyone’s right shall be protected by law.
However it has been shown that this right of life can be waivered in certain circumstances. There are established moral and religious exceptions in situation such as martyrdom, war and capital punishment where one’s right to life can be given up. Martyrdom for a religious belief is acceptable in a case where one chooses their own life over blasphemy and obedience to a tyrant, reflecting the mores of society exist still in a religious influence society. It is more acceptable to give up one’s life in this form than in suicide as it illustrates one’s sacrifice to uphold their faith and the faith of other believers rather than being the result of personal despair. The right of life also does not prevent the state from sending soldiers to probable death in war for the same reason. It is acceptable to send people to death in war to kill other people including civilians as they are dying for a worthy cause and in an honourable manner representing their country. The right of life can also be taken away; when in some countries where capital punishment still exists, the right of life is forfeited on account of a crime. Even though the sentence is “only for the most serious crimes (which do not necessarily relate to homicide offences) is permitted under article 6(2) of the international Covenant on Civil and Political rights” it shows the right of life does not exist for everyone and some are able to have a choice in death because they’re goal is different to those who wish to be euthanized.
A Key argument by anti euthanasists is that euthanasia leads to other immoral practises and devaluing death. With results from the Netherland study by PJ van der Maas where euthanasia was legal showing that practise of euthanasia has not resulted in greater patient autonomy but in doctors “acquiring even more power over the life and death of their patient.”However undermines the theory when the same result is shown in Australia. Indeed Euthanasia has led to involuntary euthanasia however legalising Euthanasia would not increase the amount of involuntary euthanasia. In fact Margaret Otlowski states that the practise of bringing about death without explicit request is much more widespread in Australia – a country where the practise of active voluntary euthanasia is prohibited that it is in the Netherlands where the practise has been legalised and regulated.
Euthanasia shows the different moral views of society. With pro euthanasists arguing the right to die, dying with dignity and legalising what is already a regular practise, while non supporters argue against euthanasia with the idea of the right to life, the devaluation of life and creating a path to other immoral practises. There will always be conflict between individual’s moral view and the law thus the Government had to strike a balance between the interest of the community as a whole and the fundamental rights of the individual.
Referecnes
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Chisolm, R. and Nettheim, G. Understanding Law, Sixth Edition, Butterworths, Sydney,
Chapter 13.
Lewis, Penny. Assisted Dying and legal change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Otlowski, Margaret. Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law. United States: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Diane Pretty makes final 'death with dignity' plea. London: The Guardian, c2002. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/20/health.uknews
Chisolm, R. and Nettheim, G. Understanding Law, Sixth Edition, Butterworths, Sydney, Chapter 13.
Lewis, Penny. Assisted Dying and legal change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Otlowski, Margaret. Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law. United States: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Diane Pretty makes final 'death with dignity' plea. London: The Guardian, c2002. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/20/health.uknews
Diane Pretty makes final 'death with dignity' plea. London: The Guardian, c2002. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/20/health.uknews
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Brooks- Gordon, Belinda et al. Death Rites and Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Amarasekara, K. & Bagaric, M. (2002) Euthanasia, morality and the law, New York: Peter Lang.
Otlowski, Margaret. Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law. United States: Oxford University Press, 1997.