Should a suffering patient have to endure constant excruciating pain and sickness? Should they be excluded from the right to experience a more tranquil and self-dignifying death, and be denied assistance from fully capable physicians? More specifically, should euthanasia or assisted suicide be legalised for the terminally ill? Euthanasia (derived from the Greek word meaning “good death”) refers to the deliberate act of injecting a patient with a lethal vaccination, with the intention of ending the patient’s life. This is often involving a dependent patient, for his or her supposed benefit and is most commonly executed for the purpose of relieving persistent suffering. Although the majority of society can acknowledge that it is a human right to die with dignity and have the to ability make our own decisions and determine how our life concludes, euthanasia is a significantly controversial subject of debate and has stirred worldwide controversy, with arguments both for and against its legality. In the mindset of proponents against the operation, euthanasia seems an infringement of a person’s fundamental right to live. Due to these negative speculations, several patients worldwide are forced to endure constant pain and suffering that they are unable to relieve. Patients with chronic or terminal illnesses living in regions where euthanasia is criminalised have to travel to a significant extent to reach one of the few foreign countries where the operation is legal. This may appear to be a relatively straight-forward act, however so far, only a mere three countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and few states within the United States of America have fully decriminalised euthanasia. This means that those living in remote regions, or citizens receiving minimum income are presented with significant obstruction of their ability to undergo the operation if they are in unbearable agony. Although legalising euthanasia is a humane and civilised decision both nurses and doctors are forced to abide by the laws and regulations constructed against it, therefore refusing any applicants. Personally, I strongly believe that all forms of euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill and for those who endure unbearable suffering on a daily basis, whether the sickness is psychological or physical. The content of this essay is going to cover several arguments regarding a patient’s dignity, freedom of choice, the humanity of the operation, human rights and will also include few common counterarguments including tenets of the Hippocratic oath that I personally disagree with.
One of the most common counter-arguments against the legalisation of euthanasia is that if decriminalised, nurses and doctors that assist patients through the operation or simply allow the patients to perform the operation themselves, would be violating the main principle of the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic oath is one of the most acknowledged ancient texts studied by the majority of physicians in the 4th century B.C. Its importance over time has diminished to a mere significance, however, during the time of its development and several years following it, the text was fundamental to the functioning of society and towards all medical practices. This text included the obligations and proper conduct needed to become a certified doctor, and in its original form, required a physician to swear by a number of healing Gods, to uphold specific ethical standards when treating their patients. This limited the number of those who desired the income they would receive for their labour over its quality. Due to the texts’ significance, any civilians who violated the oath or opposed any of it’s tenets brought significant dishonour and shame to both their relatives and themselves. In addition to this, violating the text would have resulted in possible excommunication, and presented the potential for extreme difficulty in the afterlife. Although the maxim “do no harm” is a common theme throughout the text, there is a large quantity of those who misinterpret its’ meaning. The majority of proponents against euthanasia argue that doctors that assist patient’s in ending their own life are causing significant and irreversible harm, therefore, violating the main principle. However, opponents argue that the “harm” element is being taken far too literally and that harm can instead refer to the patient’s wellbeing rather than their actual life. Due to euthanasia’s current criminalisation, when considering wellbeing over life specifically, several tenets of the oath are considered to be violated. For example, the oath advises doctors to care for their patients and to fulfil them with their best possible quality of life throughout their sicknesses. However, if doctors are simply forbidding patients from ending their pain, knowing that they only have short time left to live that will only consist of unbearable agony and distress, they are also not caring for them and are instead forcing them to live an insufferable quality of life. This unquestionably violates the main principle of doing no harm. In addition to this, proponents against euthanasia source information from the original hippocratic oath (which was developed thousands of years ago) rather than considering updated interpretations, therefore deriving the majority of their arguments from heavily outdated and expired sources. Since it’s original development, society has changed dramatically. Humans have developed our understanding on the significance that the right to forming our own decisions has on our lives. Along with this, we are aware of the effects that forbidding someone from having this human right results in. However, thousands of years ago, citizens did not have this mentality. Modern day doctors have even acknowledged the text’s irrelevance to modern day medical practices and have mentioned it’s outdated content. As a result, several of the oath’s tenets have been modified to ensure they have been updated to conform with the common medical practices and beliefs of modern society. Updated interpretations of the oath present physicians with the understanding of the significance of taking life as well preserving: “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.” Overall, euthanasia/assisted suicide does not violate the Hippocratic oath, due to the fact that the operation promotes the overall theme of doing no harm and improves the patients quality of life, and has been modified and updated due to its outdated form. Along with counter-arguments against the Hippocratic oath, I also believe that criminalising euthanasia restricts people from have freedom of choice and refrains them from their right to die a peaceful death.
Another argument against euthanasia revolves around a person’s right to life. Anti-euthanasia proponents argue that euthanasia infringes on a person’s fundamental right to live. However, these proponents fail to understand that human existence implies death. Without death, we do not have “human life”. Therefore for those that argue that every man has the fundamental right to live, they unknowingly also agree that every man has the fundamental right to die as well. Because we can determine the course of our lives by our own will and consent, naturally, it should follow that the we as human beings should also be able to determine how we die whether the death is natural or influenced by decision. In addition to the philosophical implications of a human’s right to live or die lies a human’s explicit and fundamental right to choose and make our own decisions. Every single person values inheriting this explicit right and uses it to form decisions that are made. The society that man has built is founded on this very right therefore, it’s importance is highly significant. For example, a terminally ill individual who is currently under significant pain may choose to die with dignity, as it is his right to do so. To deny him this ability is to deny him his personal independence and is an act of trespassing on his humanity. In addition to the patients fundamental right to chose, legalising euthanasia is a humane and civilised decision that improves the quality of life of patients and refrains those who are dying from having to live through the horrifying alternatives of unbearable suffering. One possible reason as to why there are regulations against euthanasia is that we haven’t been put in the situation of a terminal ill patient who are constantly suffering. Most of us fear death and it’s consequences because we have the uncertainty and the worry that death may be preceded by agonising pain. However, those who are terminally ill and are in pain for the majority of the time, would rather it ended sooner than having to suffer for a larger quantity of time. By allowing people to choose the cause and date of their death we’re guaranteeing they’ll live what remaining life they have to the fullest, free from the pain and anxiety. It is also important to note that the majority of people that argue this claim are usually not the patients themselves and therefore, have irrelevant opinions in this circumstance. Another factor to recognise is that legalising euthanasia sustains our self-hood and our human dignity. Self-determination is another one of the key elements that make us human and it a fundamental concept to consider when discussing the most important human rights to obtain. It is the ability to determine our destiny as individuals and is facilitated by our ability to think for ourselves and to pursue certain actions that the majority of people are able to pursue every day, however, those with a terminal illness often lack this source of dignity. Imagine a life where an illness has left you incapable of conducting the basics of life; you are unable to breathe, move or even think for yourself. You have effectively removed your ability to self-determine, arguably a significant element in being “human”. This sense of self is the foundation of our human dignity. Add this element to having to endure constant pain to the point where they prefer death than living this way. Over time, because of this experience, the person will eventually lose sight of their “self”, when they could move around, form opinions and have self-determination. This will all be a distant memory, and the most real thing to them will be the constant state of pain they are in. They won’t even be able to cry out in pain despite the pain. Refraining patients who are already at a loss for their self-hood and dignity means that they will die in a non-self-dignifying manner as they know they will die in a terrible state. Euthanasia can provide them with the opportunity to finish their life keeping their human dignity intact. The majority of arguments against euthanasia infer that euthanasia is immoral and inhumane. However, for a physician to deny the patients from their right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively forcing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual death. While the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand another person to live a life of suffering, in fact, it is extremely immoral. Euthanasia facilitates the choice making it, in fact, the compassionate choice and sympathetic to that person’s dignity. Overall, criminalising euthanasia refrains suffering patients from their self-hood and their human dignity and legalising euthanasia improves the patients quality of life and promotes a more humane and civilised society. Along with these claims, I also believe that euthanasia should be legalised as it does not bring harm to others and does not have a significant influence on surrounding citizens.
One of the main arguments against euthanasia is that it’s irreversible. After the patient has been injected, they are unable to change the fact that they are going to die and that there is no possible way that they will be able to survive. This argument often suggests that those who apply for euthanasia may have had an unexpected recovery that was just around the corner, or if they might have gone on to lead full and happy lives despite their illnesses. However this argument ignores significant data that has been collected from several euthanasia studies in the past. In all nations where euthanasia is legal, it’s a near-exclusive preserve for the terminally ill meaning that those who have a high chance of survival are often denied. In one of the three nations where euthanasia is legalised, (Netherlands) a Dutch report issued in 1991 into euthanasia found that in 86 percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. In other words, euthanasia in most cases is the last opportunity that suffering patients have to end their agony earlier than in a months time. Although miracle recoveries occasionally happen they aren’t often heard of because they’re so statistically improbable. For the vast majority of patients, such a recovery is less likely than winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning in the same afternoon. Along with not shortening lives by a significant amount, euthanasia has also been proven to actually save lives. In the Netherlands (where they’ve had progressive laws on assisted dying for over a decade now) another euthanasia experiment was conducted which discovered that in 2005 only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient’s explicit permission or consent. However, another 1991 report written a decade before euthanasia was legalised showed that the number of assisted deaths without the patients consent at 0.8 percent. In other words, the legalisation of assisted suicide nationwide actually halved the number of unwanted assisted deaths.