Euthanasia is usually (whenever it is committed) carried out (in cases where it is legal) by doctors giving their patients a lethal dose of painkillers so as to bring about a painless death as the patients die in their ‘sleep’. Although in circumstances where a legal euthanising has not been permitted relatives or friends of the ‘victim’ have had to guess the amount of painkillers needed and in one case the relatives had to place a plastic bag over the head of the ill person as they had not correctly calculated the amount needed to kill him. This is one example of why it should be allowed the press reported the next day “as it would allow them to be carried out in a proper dignified manner”.
For:
It is my view that Euthanasia should be allowed due to the basic overruling fact that regarding human rights a person should be allowed to choose how he or she wishes to live his or her life let alone how he or she wishes to end it. It is not seen as a crime to end your own life but it is seen as a life sentence able offence to assist someone in taking their own life if they are not capable of it their selves. That fact that someone can be in insufferable pain and not be able to do anything about it is a completely unacceptable one. It is a breach of someone’s human rights to not be allowed to chose the methods of their own death, especially if it issimply to avoid a terrible (and often inevitable) suffering and to give themselves a peaceful and dignified death. It is also considered in the USA to be legal to commit suicide (it was up to a while ago decided that the property of anyone who committed suicide belonged to the state) but as I said before it is illegal to help someone who cannot commit suicide them selves! Also to try and keep a person alive as long as is possible can be detrimental not only to their quality of life but it can also bring about considerable suffering on the behalf of the relatives, knowing that their family member is suffering a large amount of pain for prolonged periods of time and is not being able to do anything about it.
If we allow doctors to euphonise a patient it can quickly and humanly end their life with a certain amount of dignity that they would not have were they to die through natural causes. It would also mean that, were it made legal, doctors would be able to do what is best for the patient and what the patient wants which would also mean that it could be done professionally and not have to be done by someone who could cause the patient a lot of suffering because he or she did not know what they were doing. To face death would be a lot easier for patients who knew that they could face it with a measure of dignity which is the all important thing here, a person who has no control over his or her actions effectively loses all (or almost all) of his or her dignity as they are no longer able to do anything for themselves and need help from loved ones (or even trained helpers in cases where they do not have any immediate relatives or family) to do the simplest things such as go to the toilet or even eat. When someone feels that they have lost all means to carry on existing (or that they have a reason itself to stop life such as inevitable pain) then they might wish to end their life it is simply cruel to withhold from them that ability to do so as they are to disabled too do it on their own.
There have been a few rules that have been put forward by the people wishing euthanasia to be made legal (I believe that these are followed to some degree or at least in some variation in the countries where it is legal already). They are as follows:
- The patient must be terminally ill (this means that they must have no hope of recovering).
- The patient must have 6 months or less to live (by a doctor’s opinion).
- The patient must make two oral requests for assistance in dying (to a witness as well not just to a relative in case they are lying).
- The patient must make one written request for assistance (which would be copied and sent to all people concerned).
- The patient must convince two physicians that she/he is sincere, is not taking action on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary (is not influenced by any relative or friend who would stand to gain on the victim’s death).
- The patient must not have been influenced by depression
- The patient must be informed of the “feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control.
- The patient must wait 15 days.
This is exactly the kind of rule system that I think would work out perfectly as it ensures all the important things that could go wrong with the system are covered and that the action is completely sincere.
Below is an excerpt from the Dutch law that has recently been enacted regarding euthanasia.
Holland's Euthanasia Law
On April 10, 2001, a Dutch law permitting both euthanasia and assisted suicide was approved. That law which went to effect on April 1, 2002, is summarized below:
Due Care is required
Requires that the physician "has terminated a life or assisted suicide with due care." [Chapter II, Article 2, 1, f.] This requirement – that the procedure be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion – transforms the crimes of euthanasia and assisted suicide into medical treatments.
Specifically allows euthanasia for incompetent patients.
Persons 16 years old and older can make an advance "written statement containing a request for termination of life" which the physician may carry out. [Chapter II, Article 2, 2.] The written statement need not be made in conjunction with any particular medical condition. It could be a written statement made years before, based upon views that may have changed. The physician could administer euthanasia based on the prior written statement.
Teenagers 16 to 18 years old may request and receive euthanasia or assisted suicide. A parent or guardian must "have been involved in decision process," but need not agree or approve.
[Chapter II, Article 2, 3] Children 12 to 16 years old may request and receive euthanasia or assisted suicide. A parent or guardian must "agree with the termination of life or the assisted suicide."
[Chapter II, Article 2, 4] A person may qualify for euthanasia or assisted suicide if the doctor "holds the conviction that the patient's suffering is lasting and unbearable."
[Chapter II, Article 2, 1b] There is no requirement that the suffering be physical or that the patient be terminally ill. Oversight is by non-judicial committees all oversight of euthanasia and assisted suicide will be done by a "Regional Review Committee for Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide" after the death of the patient.
[Chapter III] Each regional committee will be made up of at least 1 legal specialist, 1 physician and 1 expert on ethical or philosophical issues.
[Chapter III, Article 3, 2] An expert in "philosophical issues" is one who has expertise regarding the "discussion on the prerequisites for a meaningful life."
[Chapter III, Article 3, 2, FN 1] Change in burden of proof under the prior practice of euthanasia in Holland, the "burden of proof" was on the physician to justify the termination of life. The change in the law shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor who will be required to show that the termination of life did not meet the requirements of due care. The prosecutor will not receive information about any euthanasia death unless it is forwarded by a Regional Committee.
[Chapter III, Articles 9 and 10] Residency not required the prospect of "euthanasia tourism" exists. Although public relations statements about the law have claimed that only Dutch residents will be able to receive euthanasia or assisted suicide, the law does not prohibit doctors from administering euthanasia to non-residents.
Against:
Most (although not all) of the people who fight against euthanasia are Christians or followers of a religion that believes god gave life to all the people of the world and that only he has the right to take it away. By this they mean that they believe even suicide is wrong, they think that no human being has the right to take his or her life away from his or herself, not even if it means suffering tremendous pain. They believe that god would never give anyone suffering that is beyond their ability to handle and some even go so far as to say that the suffering that they are (or are going to) suffer is a blessing and is an opportunity for cleansing their sins!
Another argument states that by allowing euthanasia to become legal in the UK and other European we would be potentially devaluing life itself which is not a good thing as it could lead to relaxing of other laws regarding the ending of life (such as murder and manslaughter).
It is also possible to imagine that there could be a number of unpleasant situations were people are pressurised into asking for suicide when they did not really (in their hearts) want it, as a result of either conscious or subconscious pressure from doctors, family or friends. There are numerous circumstances that this could happen. For instance an old person who is in the care of their family (younger generation) could be subconsciously pressurised into opting for euthanasia because they feel that they are a burden on the people who are taking care of them (although in their heart they do not really want to die).
The law could also open up problems in situations were relatives of (for instance) a rich person with a fatal disease. If the old person (who might not be able to talk or communicate) had a lot of money then it could be possible (of under the circumstances that the law permitted) to initiate a ‘mercy killing’ and stand to gain a lot of money. This is only one of the problems that face us when trying to decide whether or not a similar law to the one in Holland should be enacted but it is a very important one, people could be influenced by greed or other motives if it is placed in their decision (or ability to influence the older person).
People who stand against the euthanasia movement are also quick to point out the benefits of hospices. A hospice is a place where terminally ill person goes. It is a place that is dedicated solely to making the lives of people who are terminally ill better and it does it very well. They believe that a patient desiring euthanasia would do perfectly well in a hospice when under the influence of powerful painkilling drugs, drugs that under normal circumstances would shorten the life of the person but now is actually prolonging it as he or she would no longer (they claim) desire euthanasia.
There is also the worry (when dealing with a wish for euthanasia) that a person who has made the decision when under a different condition (i.e. one better than the one they are in now meaning that they can communicate) they might change their mind and wish to go back on the decision that they made only a few days before but can not tell the doctor as they have lost the ability to communicate with anyone, were this to happen it could be classed as murder! This worry is coupled with the fact that people who have so often been written off (not expected to recover) by doctors and who would have been euphonised had the law permitted it have recovered to a full (or most usually a partial) life.
The last point that I have to make about this is that under the Hippocratic Oath doctors swear to preserve life and to do the best for their patients and that by killing the person they are breaking that oath. The idea of doing anything other than keeping the patient alive to the end is a direct violation of the principles that doctors strive to uphold.
