The term euthanasia means the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia). Voluntary euthanasia is when the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide." Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. They involve one person facilitating the death of another. This is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to the abuse and exploitation of the vulnerable people they care for.
Two acts of parliament govern the law in Britain - the Murder Act of 1965 and the Suicide Act of 1961. The Murder Act stipulates that intentional killing, even with the patient's consent for compassionate reasons, is a crime; the Suicide Act removed the criminal status of suicide but retained the criminal status of assisting suicide. When suicide was decriminalised in Britain in 1961 it was in order to save people suffering depression from the further stress of a criminal prosecution should they survive the attempt. Although suicide might be the choice of a mentally ill individual, it was not a choice to be embraced by society at large. Death was to be resisted rather than assisted. Death remained, in the prevailing worldview of the time, a choice that no rational and sane person would choose. When the House of Lords enquiry ruled in 1994 that 'there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia' it effectively rubber-stamped these two Acts of Parliament. As a result euthanasia remains illegal in Britain.
However, society's attitude to death has shifted still further since then. In the view of some moral philosophers and increasing numbers of the general public, to decide for death over life can be the rational choice of a sane individual. In some instances death has come to be seen as a moral good. The understanding of this change cannot be underestimated. Its roots lie in a changed perception of human identity and autonomy.
The recent case of Diane Pretty who went to the European Convention on Human Rights to allow her husband to assist her to commit suicide has highlighted an issue which many try to ignore. This request was refused. This should have been seen as a cry for help and her own rights, in a democratic society ought to be heard. Now because nobody wants to take the responsibility for her death, she must continue to suffer with the incurable Motor Neurone Disease
In a similar case, 17 year old Tony Bland was left in a permanent vegetative state after the Hillsborough disaster. His parents and the medical staff treating him, fought for nearly five years to be given the right to switch off his life support machine. The defence argument was basically ‘who has the right to act as God’. The Hospitals’ duty should be to save lives but if Tony was ever going to regain consciousness and lead a normal life this wouldn’t be in debate. A doctors duty is to prolong life and much of the medication given are just pain killers. Not actually curing the disease but primarily to keep you alive but the suffering is still there.
The emergence of clinics in Switzerland where euthanasia is legal has caused a debate in this country primarily due to the 2 British citizens who flew there precisely for this reason. Both patients were terminally ill and enduring immense pain and suffering. Their partners accompanied them for support, but ultimately it was their decision to go ahead. These wives could still be tried in this country for assisting a death, as if this had happened in this country, would surely have been charged and possibly convicted for the simple act of caring for their loved one and doing everything in their power to ease the discomfort.
The argument from compassion viewpoint is that it is kinder to grant 'death with dignity' rather than allowing a person to go on suffering. The basic flaw in this argument is that it assumes that effective treatments do not exist for the symptoms that prompt the request for euthanasia. The opposite is true: there are effective treatments for the pain, nausea, other distressing symptoms and fear that the terminal patient faces. Medicine may not be capable of relieving the fears of loss of indignity felt by a person with no hope beyond death - but this simply emphasises that the needs of a dying patient are spiritual as well as physical.
Another difference of opinion is that patients have a right to die or a right to be killed - more specifically the right to be killed by a doctor. In practice this means imposing upon doctors a duty to kill. Although giving doctors this right to kill is very dangerous.
The argument from economics is that we simply can't afford to keep people alive. After the Tony Bland verdict this line of reasoning started to appear in newspapers along with calculations about how much it cost society to keep the 1,000 or so patients in the UK with persistent vegetative state alive. A debate which has been concluded that, as soon as he gets beyond 60-65 years of age, man lives beyond his capacity to produce, and he costs society a lot of money. Therefore, many believe euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies. In fact the costs of terminal care are grossly inflated. Basic nursing care is all most dying patients require - and even for those who require pain relief or other drugs, the costs are not high.
Conclusion
In my opinion, we should all have the right to decide our own fate. We live our life respecting the laws of our country and everyone is aware of the threat of imprisonment for murder. We are also raised to believe this is wrong, even if we are no longer as church-going and God-fearing as previous generations. But euthanasia and assisted suicide should not be deemed the same.
National Health Service Economics should never come into this decision and it is grossly unfair that many elderly or infirm patients have ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ notices above their hospital bed. Everyone, irregardless of age should have the right to life. In the same sense we should have a right to death.
Many in the medical profession believe Dr Shipman had the right idea, but none of his elderly victims were terminal and would have all had at least ten more years of life. Unfortunately, the privileged position doctors hold gives them a license to do what they see fit. How, in a civilised country like the UK was he able to murder over 170 patients before suspicion was aroused? This is ultimately the problem. How many other vulnerable patients, who respect their doctors, have been killed this way? With this in mind, it is extremely difficult for the courts to decide if those requesting imminent death are truly in sound mind.
I would like to see legislation changed to respect patients like Diane Pretty without her having to go through legal arguments for her wishes to be respected.
This is truly a difficult debate but the key point I wish to make is that everyone should have the right to die with dignity and we should respect this last wish rather than preserve them against their will with virtually no quality of life.
