Should Euthanasia be legalized in Sweden?

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

In today’s contemporary society, it is acknowledged by all individuals that all living organisms end their life cycle with a stage known as death. However the question one should ask is whether individuals should be given the right to curtail their life; should one be allowed to intentionally take one’s own life? In this essay, I will be discussing whether or not euthanasia should be legalized in Sweden; this will be accomplished by examining the arguments for and against. Only by fully examining the different perspectives will I be able to reach an informed conclusion. However it is vital to start off this essay by answering the questions of what euthanize is, how it works and any other background information that may be necessary for you, the reader to understand my point of view.

Euthanasia “is the deliberate killing of a person for the benefit of that person.” (). to clarify, this essay is about legalizing voluntary euthanasia only (the patient decides on his/her own free will to take their own life). There are only 5 countries in the world where euthanasia has been legalized, and they are Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia and the state of Oregon in USA. The process of euthanasia is extremely complex and not all individuals are accepted. The main method used is lethal injections, the patient is injected with a lethal solution into the brachial artery; within a few minutes the solutions is circulated around the body and the heart beats gradually come to a halt. It’s a painless method, as a high percentage of the solution consists of morphine. For a patient to be given permission for euthanasia, it is required that the patient is examined by a doctor, along with a physiologist to conclude that the patient is in a state of “unbearable” pain and of sane mind. The definition of what unbearable pain is differs, as every single individual reacts differently to a state or condition. Therefore, once the patient has been examined and is a possible applicant, they are sent to the Supreme Court and given a trial where the patient’s case is presented. It is a long process and can take up to 2 years, but it is vital to ensure that no mistakes are made. Below are 4 main points, which are necessary for candidacy:

The patient is suffering from a deadly illness
The illness needs to be incurable or incurable during the patient’s life expectancy
The patient needs to be suffering from unbearable pains or their lifestyle must be relying on the help of others.
The patient needs to have enough mental competence to make up their own mind voluntarily

This is a preview of the whole essay

The patient is suffering from a deadly illness
The illness needs to be incurable or incurable during the patient’s life expectancy
The patient needs to be suffering from unbearable pains or their lifestyle must be relying on the help of others.
The patient needs to have enough mental competence to make up their own mind voluntarily

Whether or not to legalize euthanasia is a very controversial issue that has been discussed by professors, mullahs, priests, politicians and the general public for many years. It’s only during the last 15 years, that a few countries have come to legalize it. Readers may ask why I chose to write about this topic, and there is a specific reason for that. In 2000 midsummer, Chantal Sébire, a mother of three was hit by a terrible rare disease known as esthesioneuroblastoma; a disease that attacks the nasal cavity. It’s a rare disease that disfigures the face by a facial tumor and is incurable. Within the same year, she lost her sense of smell and taste; last year the tumor attacked her eye sockets and deprived her of her vision. She is now incapable of doing simple chores such as opening the fridge or merely walking down the stairs. Each day she suffers from 4 hours of excruciating pain; when the network BBC asked her how she was coping with her disease she stated that “an animal would not be allowed to endure what I have to endure,”. In the beginning of the New Year cycle, she asked the public to let her die with dignity. Chantal’s trial took place in the beginning of February 2008; in the opening speech she begged the French president Nicholas Sarkozy to give her the right to die in peace.

This case has forced me to open my eyes and question whether or not euthanasia should be legalized. If not, is there any justification for forcing Chantal Sébire to continue living with a disease that causes such excruciating pain that only those who are afflicted by it, truly know how hard it is.

The most popular argument used against euthanasia is that it’s morally wrong, it devalues life and it’s against the will of god. It is believed by many that legalizing euthanasia encourages people to kill themselves and gives the message that it’s better to be dead then disabled. There is a fear that people who might lose one of their senses and or any body parts, will be in a state of mental instability and will not be able to make reasonable decisions. Belgium along with Switzerland and the Netherland’s are against this. First of all, all individuals have the freedom of choice, the argument that it is against the will of god is not especially persuasive, each and every single person should have the right to choose, and if it were to be a sin then the person should have the right to commit that sin. The second argument that euthanasia devalues life is flawed in the way that it suggests that death is a bad thing; death is a stage of life that all living organisms have to go through and to suggest that people will start devaluing life is absurd. It is within human autonomy to want to live and to assume that people will kill themselves for the benefit of others is an absurdity; alongside this there are strict regulations that ensure that patients are doing it for their own benefit.

The main reason for the Scandinavian countries, not legalizing euthanasia is because of the fear of abuse and poor regulations; fear that doctors will abuse their power. It is often argued that doctors should not be allowed to play god, as it is they who decide which of their patients are possible candidates; who is to say that doctors have enough competence to decide upon who gets to die. Often, the first thought that comes to mind when legalizing euthanasia is murder. A lot of people see euthanasia as way of saying that murder happens so why not legalize and regulate it. Naturally it is impossible to have guidelines and rules that will prevent mistakes from being made, but it’s better to have some rules then none at all. We have the example of the legalization of certain drugs in the Netherlands; by legalizing drugs they can insure people are not given too high dosages or impure products and thus in the long run can actually decrease the death toll. It is believed by many politicians that legalizing euthanasia will lead to the same trend, of actually decreasing the suicide toll.

Another argument is that legalizing voluntary euthanasia will in time lead to involuntary euthanasia. There is a high risk of people deciding to kill themselves might not be for the benefit for themselves but for others such as their family members. Thus voluntary euthanasia will convert into involuntary euthanasia as patients will be pressured into choosing euthanasia to prevent their families having the burden of being forced to take care of them. How is this necessarily true? Euthanasia and the regulations are so strict and well organised that a very small percentage of the patients will decide not to do it for themselves; however the main argument for legalizing euthanasia is that the pressure will always be there; by legalizing euthanasia one can prevent patients from deciding to take drastic actions such as hanging themselves or committing suicide; instead one can actually prevent people from committing suicide, this is statistically proven as the rate of suicides in Belgium has decreased by 23,2% since they legalized Euthanasia back in 1996.

Above, I have provided the strongest arguments against euthanasia and it’s quite apparent that the arguments against it are flawed and not particularly persuasive. The religious and ethical arguments against can be argued with the existence of free will and freedom of choice; the practical arguments can be argued for by simply looking at the statistics and how the current countries that have legalized euthanasia are actually decreasing the voluntary death toll (suicide); The historical argument of voluntary euthanasia transforming into involuntary death because of external pressure, is flawed in the way that euthanasia does not build up pressure but on the contrary decreases it. Now you might be questioning yourself as to why euthanasia is still illegal? The main reason for this is because death is always associated with negativity and therefore seen as being bad. Somewhere deep inside every single human, there is voice that just says no to euthanasia; and that judgement will remain there until we have come to accept death as a part of the life cycle. I, like many others was against legalizing euthanasia, but as I started gradually accepting death as a part of the life cycle I came to change my mind. Picture yourself with a disease that is so terrible, that you suffer excruciating pain in every limb of your body, every hour of the day you are awake. Picture yourself without the sense of smell, taste and vision. Picture yourself as Chantal Sébire.

On March the 18th 2008, Chantal’s case was lost; the judge showed sympathy but the French laws were clear on the prohibitation of the use of euthanasia. On March the 19th 2008, Chantal Sébire was found dead in her apartment.

Word count: 1632

Bibliography