A session in Parliament on a single topic can be quite hard to arrange, especially if the sessions are all full. It almost seems that the topic of voluntary euthanasia is ignored or avoided by Parliament.
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society also agrees, in their article, they say, ‘opposing voices tend to reveal an ignorance of the true nature of voluntary euthanasia.’
A plus side for making voluntary euthanasia legal is money. Large amounts of money are spent every year to look after terminally ill patients in both hospitals and care homes. Even though they may wish to die, patients are kept alive by drugs, medical staff and machine which all cost money through drug purchase and storage, staff wages and machine fuel and maintenance.
If voluntary euthanasia were made legal, a large sum of money would be saved because money would no longer have to be spent on care for patients with a terminal illness as they may wish to die.
The money saved would be beneficial for everyone as the money could be spent on drug and disease research, hospital and education funds, care homes and improving the environment around us.
Motor neurone disease is a terminal illness. It leaves the patient’s mind alone but instead gradually destroy muscles all over the body. Motor neurone disease sufferers will always fear a death of suffocation and choking which is very common in motor neurone disease. If motor neurone patients wished to die at the moment before a slow death and voluntary euthanasia was legal, they would be reassured of a painless and quick death.
Some people might say ‘What if the patient is unable to make the decision?’
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society has solved this problem as well. If you go to their headquarters in London or write to them, they will provide you with an ‘Advance Declaration’ that you are able to fill in and give you’re doctor in case a time should arise when you are no longer capable of deciding their own future.
The Advance Declaration says that if there is no reasonable prospect of recovery from an illness that would deny a ‘rationable existence’, the patient requests to be allowed to die rather than be kept alive by artificial means.
The Advance Declaration is quite helpful because if someone with no family or friends becomes critically ill, the Advance Declaration can give a quick decision over whether the patient wants to die.
An Advance Declaration is also called a Living Will. Whatever the name, both of them specify what they wish to happen should various circumstances arise.
In the film, ‘Whose life is it anyway’, a quadriplegic man fights for voluntary euthanasia.
In the film a man called Ken Harrison wants to die, as he has no life ahead of him. He was in a road accident and was left unable to move any part of his body apart from his head. He gives quite a good argument for him being allowed voluntary euthanasia.
When being offered a sedative, the patient Ken Harrison refuses it. The doctor says, ’It will make you feel better’. He then replies,’ Quieter you mean’. This shows that a patient in a hospital with no life ahead of them, they are not treated like humans. Ken has realised this.
This is continued after the refusal. The doctor then injects the sedative against Ken’s will. Ken says,’ The only thing I have left is my consciousness and I don’t want that paralysed as well.’. He also says,’ Is that all I am to you … is that all I am … just a lump of clay?’ This means that because he cannot move and do anything, especially sculpting, he can be moulded or forced into anything the doctors want and he cannot stop them.
Later on he was told that he would be transferred to a different hospital. He replies by saying, ‘ you just grow the vegetables here- the vegetable store is somewhere else.’. This means that the doctors treat the patient’s here- then they put them in a different hospital to die.
If voluntary euthanasia was legal, patients could die on their own wish, saving all the trouble of moving patients to different hospitals or looking after them.
All the above quotes show that Ken Harrison has no control whatsoever over his future life.
At one time he says,’ I’ve decided I don’t want to stay alive’. This seems quite serious but he did mean it. Voluntary euthanasia wouldn’t be allowed just like that. If it were it would be quite risky. What if Ken suddenly decided he didn’t want to die? It would be too late. He could have been clinically depressed.
Ken tells his girlfriend, Pat, that he is ‘honoured’ and ‘moved’ by her love but:
‘ I am no longer someone to love, I am an object’
‘ I want you to walk out of here and never come back … If you don’t want to torture me- go now… please’
When Pat walks out she knocks over a vase. The broken vase represents the broken relationship.
Ken dearly loved Pat but he wanted her to live the rest of her life fully and make the most of it. He didn’t want her to waste her life looking after him and seeing him every day. If she did that she wouldn’t be able to do things like getting a job or having a date.
If Ken did die from his own wishes Pat could have a lively life and have fun. This is another good reason for legalising voluntary euthanasia.
During the film, an occupational therapist visits Ken; she was trying to convince Ken that he could do different things other than sculpting. He was quite rude to her but she did not retaliate by saying something like ‘get lost’. She turned her professionalism cheek to Ken. This means that she acted nice to him even though he was rude to her. This is what he objects to.
During the meeting, Ken has an attack and is given air. He tries to commit suicide by refusing the air but his body’s survival system locks in and prevents him from doing it. This shows that Ken is serious about dying and he wants voluntary euthanasia.
Ken decides to fight for his right to die and employs a lawyer. His main reason is to be discharged from the hospital and be left to die. Dr. Emerson is committed to save his life and wants to claim Ken as clinically depressed.
If Ken is claimed as clinically depressed, how can he prove he is sane and win the right to die?
To be committed as clinically depressed, Ken needs to be seen by two psychiatrists, one on his side and one on Dr. Emerson’s side. When the psychiatrist arrives he says,’ Mr. Harrison…?’
Ken replies,’ I used to be’.
This shows that Ken has no life ahead of him and he is no longer a human but an object that can’t do anything.
During the court case, Ken has to convince the judge of the emotional arguments and why he has a person should have the right to die. When asked to express his own perspective, Ken says,’ I’m dead already. I cannot believe this condition constitutes life. Life – my definition – must be self-supported. I am asking to be discharged from this hospital. The cruelty is that choice is taken away. The most important part of life was my work. My mind tortures me with what might have been. I can feel my mind breaking up’.
Ken says this because he is trying to describe what has happened to him. This shows that if someone’s life is to an end because they can no longer do what they used to do, they should be able to put themselves out of their misery. The judge seemed emotionally touched by what Ken Harrison said and left the room to find out about the legal precedents. This is whether such decisions of voluntary euthanasia have been made before. This is because if the judge went against legal precedence or started a new one, his reputation may be ruined and he may lose his job.
The judge eventually ordered that Ken Harrison be discharged from the hospital.
Although there are many arguments in the film for legalising voluntary euthanasia, there are some problems as well.
One of the problems is mood. At one time in a patient’s life they may be highly depressed for different reasons, how they got there, loneliness, the drugs they are given and the thought of the future ahead of them. During this period of depression they may feel that they want to die because of want their disease or condition will lead them to in the future. Regardless of their depression, they could be happy the next day. Emotions are different every day and if voluntary euthanasia were legal, they would most probably choose to die during their period of depression. It would be too late to turn back.
Technology can be against voluntary euthanasia as well; technology advances a little bit everyday and part of that technology is medical research. Cures are found for diseases almost everyday. If someone has a disease that has potential cure and they die, they may have been able to be cured. A cure is always possible.
Extra crime could be a result of making voluntary euthanasia legal too. If someone murdered someone perfectly healthy, the murderer could claim that the victim wanted voluntary euthanasia because the only witness is dead. Here is a scenario: a man murders a woman while she is on her nightly run. The murderer is caught and brought to trial in court and claims that the woman asked him to kill her because she no longer could bear to live. The murderer is set free until further notice. This sort of thing could happen although it sounds absurd. It would be an excuse for murder.
In religious views also, voluntary euthanasia is rejected. No one should have the right to play God on other people. Only God is allowed to decide what will happen to someone. He should decide when they should die or live.
There is another problem. What if the patient is unable to say what they want to do? Some terminal illnesses can leave the patient unconscious or unable to speak. This leaves the decision to the doctor or parents. How can they decide? They haven’t gone through the suffering and depression that the terminally ill patient had to go through.
There also chance of recovery. If someone has a condition or illness, they have some chance of recovery depending on the type of disease they have. If someone is allowed voluntary euthanasia, they may die without giving the body a chance to recover and they may not know if they could recover.
Also, what if the family of the patient tries to dissuade or persuade the terminally ill patient from dying. Maybe the relative is greedy and he only wants to benefit from the death of the patient via a will?
As said before, no patient has the right to play God. This is strongly supported by the hospice movement. The definition of hospice is ‘a place of shelter for pilgrims and travellers’. In its modern form, hospice still offers hospitality to those on a journey from this life to the next. At the end of the nineteenth century, the first hospice set up. It was set up by a group of Irish nuns called the Sisters of Charity in Dublin. Five of the sisters travelled to England in 1900, to the East End of London. This is where they carried on their work caring for the ill and dying. A few years later they established a hospice called St. Joseph’s Hospice.
60 years later, a nurse called Ciceley Saunders went to work at St. Joseph’s Hospice. She did not work there for very long because she had an illness but went on to establish many other hospices.
There are now over 100 in-patient hospice units around the country. Over 2000 patients are cared for anytime – young and old, male and female.
Many units are supported by charities and some units may be struggling for money. Many have a Christian basis but the patients don’t have to be Christian. You would find hospices all over the world caring for ill and dying patients. Hospices all share the same targets: to provide care and support for those who are dying. The targets cover three main areas; the first one is to relieve pain – whether it is caused by the illness itself, or by the stress and fear it creates; the second is to enable patients and their families to face up to death – to talk about their fears and distress in a relaxed, open atmosphere; and the third is to care for the emotional needs of relatives – before, during and after the patient’s death.
These three targets are reasonable but they do not help a patient who wants voluntary euthanasia in any way. If a patient goes to the hospice to be cared for until he dies, it is against their wishes if they wanted voluntary euthanasia. The hospice cannot relieve the pain of a slow death naturally and they can’t make the death quick and stressless. If the terminally ill patient was allowed voluntary euthanasia, he could die quickly and painlessly.
Some hospices care specially for children and young people. In Oxford there is a children’s hospice called Helen House. The aim of a children’s hospice should be to make it possible for a family to care for their sick child at home most of the time by; ensuring that available community services are mobilised where appropriate; offering occasional respite care for the child with or without other members of the family; telephone contact and home visits; offering support and help in the choosing of termination and help with the funeral arrangements if asked; continuing to provide support following the death of the child.
I feel the hospice movement was not wrong in doing what they do but vast amounts of money would be saved if voluntary euthanasia were made legal.
After writing this essay I have learnt a lot about euthanasia that I never knew before and don’t think I will forget it either. I feel that voluntary euthanasia should be made legal providing that legal safeguards are taken when a terminally ill patient decides they want to die with dignity. When a patient decides that they want voluntary euthanasia a doctor should see them. If the doctor claims that the patient has no chance of recovery and there is no cure neither potential nor available, the patient should then sign a form that reminds them of all the rules and consequences. After reading and signing the form they sign another in a secure room with no relatives that says the patient was not influenced by family members and he seriously wishes to die. The form should then be approved by a member of the law court for the voluntary euthanasia to be carried out.
