Those who advocate the use of Euthanasia argue that not only does it end the suffering of the patient but it also permits their relatives to get on with their lives earlier and put an end to the constant worry. There is no doubt relatives do have to go through a lot of pain and distress as well. They have to go through the trauma of watching their loved ones dying which must be a dreadful experience. Someone who knows all about this is Clem Lewis who had to endure the ordeal of watching his wife die of dementia. He said, “I believe now that if l were told I had Alzheimer’s disease, my reaction would to tidy up my affairs and make a quick exit while I had the ability to do so. I would hate to bother anyone or have my children’s inheritance squandered on keeping me alive at a nursing home in a demented state.” He also said, in contrast to this, “If I had been able to give her (his wife) an ‘exit pill’ I should have been tormented with guilt ever afterwards.”
Consequently, if a relative allowed a lethal injection to be given to their terminally ill loved one there is a very good chance that, like Clem, they would feel incredibly guilty for a long time afterwards. How many of us would be able to live with ourselves if we did something like that? In my opinion if someone allows that to be done then it should be considered murder. Euthanasia may stop the pain and suffering of watching a loved one die but it also adds the extra burden on relatives who may have to live with, perhaps, a lifetime of guilt.
Should euthanasia be legalised or not? The medical profession, like society in general, is split on this issue. Some doctors say that withholding the treatment of a patient in a deep coma-like state called Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) is acceptable in some circumstances. Ninety percent of specialists think that treatment should be withheld in some situations for patients diagnosed with PVS, a state in which patients are never expected to regain consciousness. These unfortunate people still need to be fed and cared for - they are still alive. It is said to be a waste of resources striving to keep alive a person who is never likely to wake up. In my opinion, the main problem with this is in the two phrases, “ never expected” and “ never likely.” This shows there is a window for error that the doctors themselves admit. That is probably why only nineteen percent of doctors would be willing to administer the lethal injection themselves.
What if the patient were wrongly diagnosed with PVS? What if that patient was misdiagnosed with PVS when only in a deep coma but aware of their surroundings? According to recent studies 17 out of 40 patients are misdiagnosed with PVS. This is a huge number considering that if euthanasia were legalised that could be 17 out of 40 wrongly killed. To illustrate this point take the example of Geoffrey Lean who was one such patient. Six months after being diagnosed with PVS, when a simple operation had gone wrong, he regained consciousness – he woke up. He knew everything that had happened during the last six months while in the coma as he had been listening to radio and television broadcasts. He had had all his senses but just could not communicate with the outside world. He heard the doctors say that there was no hope for him and were about to turn off his life support machine when his mother threw herself across him at the last minute and begged them not to. (Euthanasia by Craig Donnellan) This story proves that you can never be certain whether or not a patient is ever going to wake up. I believe that this case just shows the huge risk doctors would be taking especially as he had only been in a coma for six months. There are cases of people waking up after years of being in a coma. Would Geoffrey be alive today if euthanasia had been legalised? I very much doubt it.
I believe that if a law were passed legalising euthanasia the boundaries would get hazier and hazier just as happened with the 1967 Abortion Act. Under this Act, abortion was only to be performed under the following circumstances: “to prevent physical or mental harm to the mother or if there is a substantial risk that the baby could be handicapped”. (1967 Abortion Act) Can we honestly say that nowadays every abortion that takes place fits into these categories? Would there be any guarantee that a law dealing with Euthanasia would not be abused in the same way? In addition, policing a law such as euthanasia would be virtually impossible since the only person who could bring the charge against a doctor who committed euthanasia would be dead!
In this essay I have explored some of the arguments on the contentious, and hotly debated, issue of euthanasia. Some people claim that euthanasia is acceptable as it ends the pain and suffering of the patient, however, in my opinion euthanasia should not be permitted under any circumstances. Hospices provide treatment that can prevent terminally ill patients from suffering pain so that their final hours can be comfortable and, as I have found out, even cure patients that were considered ‘hopeless cases’. I also firmly believe that if the relatives had to make the decision about euthanasia it would cause a lot of arguments and guilt among families afterwards. I have also considered the possibility of a lethal injection being given to a person `diagnosed` with PVS and have concluded that legalising euthanasia would be in fact legalising murder under certain conditions rather than in all cases `a gentle and easy death`. In conclusion, it is my view that euthanasia is morally wrong and should not be legalised.
