Historical introduction
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic of discussion with a number of developed countries such as the United Kingdom outlawing the practice in its entirety. Euthanasia refers to actions that are taken to end the life of a terminally ill patient as a means of relieving their suffering. This is a practice that can be carried out at the request of the patient, their family or the courts. The genesis of the issue dates back over 2500 years to the Hippocratic Oath which is usually taken by all doctors. The oath is to the effect that doctors vow never to give any deadly drugs or make any suggestions alluding to deadly drugs to any parties (Pappas, 2012).
Modern discussions on the issue of euthanasia in the United States date as far back as the 1800s. In the year 1828 the very first anti-euthanasia law was conceived and passed in the state of New York (Pappas, 2012). In the year 1938 the United States saw the establishment of a euthanasia society to lobby for the topic of assisted suicide. There are other countries which have gone as far as legalizing the entire concept of euthanasia. However, this legalization is based on certain conditions that have to be met. An example of this is Switzerland which legalized the practice back in 1937 basing the legality of the practice on the doctor having nothing to gain from the death of the patient (Pappas, 2012).
In the 1960s the argument about euthanasia took an entirely different paradigm. The approach taken was in line with the right of the patient to die. In the year 1977 the concept of a living willing was legalized in California with the other states following suit. The concept behind a living will is that an individual is allowed to express their wishes when it comes to medical care in the event that they are rendered unable to make active decisions. In the year 1994 the Death with Dignity Act was passed in the state of Oregon and allowed physicians to assist in the deaths of terminal patients whose survival window was projected to be less than six months (Pappas, 2012).
The arguments pros and cons
The argument about euthanasia has pros as well as cons. First of all the very discussion is a healthy one and points to a society that is willing to discuss integral elements of everyday existence and death. A pro of the argument is that it takes into account the experience of the patient. In fact, the experience of the patient makes up the bulk of the argument when it comes to euthanasia. This is a very good thing since it is the patients who have their lives on the line (Jussim, 2012). They should not be sidelined by any other emerging element of discussion on the subject matter.
A con of the argument is that it is multi-faceted meaning that making an outright decision on the subject matter is quite difficult. This is especially so when one considers the factors that can be considered as being constituent of suffering in patients. There is no universal threshold of suffering for patients beyond which the request of assisted suicide can be deemed as being appropriate. People also have a different tolerance for suffering (Keown, 2002). This means that an individual might suffer an illness to a given degree and consider the idea of euthanasia. However, another individual might suffer to the same degree and still not consider the idea. The implication here is that suffering and the quality of life are relative terms. This makes it a lot harder for either side of the argument to conclusively make a claim of having the higher moral ground.
There are also instances where there are conflicts in the arguments presented by either side of the discussion. Among the main arguments for the idea of euthanasia is freedom of choice. Modern day society is founded on the idea that people have the option of choosing all elements of their life. In this event an argument has been made that the element of freedom of choice should be extended to patients and cover whether or not they actually want to continue living. Another argument is the subject of quality of life. The argument here is that the patients in question have a true picture of how they really feel. The emotional and physical pain associated with illness takes a toll on their quality of life as a whole. This argument is directly in conflict with that of the competence of the patients presented by the opposing side. The argument is that the patients should have a lucid understanding of all the options that are available to them and they should have a standard degree of mental competence. However, the criteria for determining the level of competence of a patient are not necessarily straight forward.
Proponents of the idea of euthanasia have argued that it gives people an element of dignity when it comes to death (Jussim, 2012). This element also has to do with ideas of the human nature of the practice. The humane argument notes that it is a humane practice to allow people with intractable suffering to choose if they want to end that suffering. However, forcing them to continue to suffer is an inhumane act that fails to take into account the suffering that they are going through and their threshold to withstand this level of suffering. This argument is countered by that of a possible recovery from the opposing side. It is not an entirely strange occurrence for patients to recover against all odds. This means that the idea of euthanasia is a premature one since there is still a possibility, however slim, that the patient will ultimately recover (Keown, 2002).
Another argument for euthanasia has to do with the loved ones of the patient. The argument here is that the illness of the patient takes a toll on the lives of the loved ones as well. They suffer a lot of emotional and psychological anguish as they watch their loved one deal with the illness. However, euthanasia helps to shorten the suffering period for the loved ones. This is especially so if the loved ones are relatively young and are likely to be very emotionally invested in the patient.
The argument for the suffering of the loved ones as well as the patient is countered by that of palliative care. Good palliative care has been known to provide a sense of relief for patients who were suffering. It also serves to place the minds of their loved ones at a greater realm of ease. To this effect it has been presented numerously as an alternative to euthanasia (Keown, 2002).
Personal view
In my opinion the concept of euthanasia should be legalized. People who are terminally ill should be allowed to make a decision on whether or not to have their lives ended by medical practitioners. If the condition that the patient has is incurable then they should be allowed to, at the very least, choose the terms under which they die. They should also be given an opportunity to die with dignity as opposed to being forced to live a life that is full of physical, emotional and mental suffering.
Reasons
The idea of euthanasia is already present especially in the western society. This is a society where people love their pets a lot. However, when the pet has an illness that is termed as being incurable then the owners of the pet consider it an act of mercy to put the pet down. They do this for ill pets as well as aging pets. The practice is meant to save the pet from suffering. It is also meant to save the owner of the pet from having to witness the pet suffer and in turn suffer as well.
The fact that euthanasia is widely accepted for pets but is not for human beings is baffling to say the least. People are willing to acknowledge the suffering of their pets and that putting the pets in the ground is an act of mercy. However, they are unwilling to acknowledge the suffering of other human beings. They are also unwilling to take note when these other human beings note that their suffering is too much and that they would prefer to actually die with dignity than continue to suffer.
The idea of allowing people to die with dignity, while at the same time alleviating their level of suffering, is also a strong argument for euthanasia. The idea of lack of a universal threshold for suffering does not hold water. This is due to the fact that people experience different things in different ways including pain. To this effect individuals should be allowed to determine what level of pain is too much for them to bear (Dowbiggin, 2003). Society has no right to determine which level of pain individuals can and should bear and which level is too much.
Likely objections
The objection to the given point of view is that euthanasia is a very slippery slope and cannot be out rightly regulated. This means that the practice can start with people who are terminally ill. However, as time moves on it can be extended to include other individuals. This means that people who are not necessarily terminally ill can seek the services of unscrupulous medical practitioners in the field and gain access to physician assisted suicide services at a fee (Keown, 2002).
Another argument that can be presented is that of mental illness and how it affects the level of judgment of patients. The idea here is that patients suffering from conditions such as depression are likely to ask for physician assisted suicide. The fact that they have a mental illness is likely to complicate the entire situation. It can affect their perception on the suffering that they are going through.
Response to counter arguments
It is not true that euthanasia is hard to regulate. There are usually comprehensive records on a patient that show the exact condition of the patient. This means that if a doctor participates in the assisted suicide of a patient who is not terminally ill then it can be determined from the records. There is also an element of consent from either the patient, their family or a court of law. This has to be backed up by the actual condition of the patient and the projections that have been made. The idea of people seeking physician assisted suicide services has to do with the ethics of the physicians and not necessarily the legalization of euthanasia. If the physicians have a low degree of ethical conduction then the illegalization of euthanasia will not stop them from engaging in the practice for profit. The reverse is also true.
It is true that people with mental health conditions such as depression are likely to ask for physician assisted suicide services. However, these conditions do not qualify as terminal conditions where the lifespan of the patient is limited. The fact that a patient requests these services does not necessarily mean that they meet the threshold for the services. The threshold should be determined by the request of the patient backed by analysis from the physician on the condition of the patient and projections that have been made on their condition heading into the future.
References
Dowbiggin, I. R. (2003). A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press on Demand.
Jussim, D. (2012). Euthanasia: the "Right to die" issue. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Pub.
Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pappas, D. M. (2012). The Euthanasia/Assisted-Suicide Debate. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
slkdgha
Paper2.docx
0
