The term “bioethics” is described as the study of ethical issues emerging from advances in biology and medicine. Like everything in life, there are multiple sides to topics. This way of life stays the same when concerning bioethical issues. Generally, one side concerns the “morally correct” side of the debate, and the other concerns the science aspect. More importantly, it signifies how certain technology is revolutionizing the way we choose to live our lives, or not to. In other words, as advances are made in science, and new technology is created and put to use, how ethical and morally acceptable those technologies are is questioned. Many modern and futuristic science topics fit in this category of bioethical. This includes abortion, cloning, stem cells, and organ donation to name a few. These topics-although revolutionizing the science world-are deemed bioethical issues because of how controversial they are. Whereas scientists claim them as the future of science, many people debate that they defy or go against their religious or personal beliefs. Abortion, for example, is technology that has the capability to prematurely end a pregnancy. It can be performed by surgery or specific medications. This medical treatment is extremely helpful to those who simply don’t have the means to raise a child. On the other hand, many believe that it is unethical to perform an abortion because they believe fetuses have moral status. Cloning is “the process of creating a new population of genetically-similar and identical naturally occurring organisms.” The problem with cloning stems from the fact that it is subjecting humans to be tested and experimented on. This begins with where the egg that is necessary to successfully clone an organism and specifically where the egg comes from (fertility clinics.) Stem cells are cells that are undifferentiated and have the potential to divide and become specialized cells. The issues with stem cells are similar to those with cloning. Many believe that even though it has the potential to save many lives, it is destroying them in the process by destroying embryos to make the cells. Another popular bioethical issue is organ donation. Although the operation is common, and it saves countless lives on a day to day basis, it is sometimes looked at as ethically concerning. The biggest issue with organ donation is that there is a major shortage of organs, yet such a long waiting list with UNOS. With that being said, the list of who gets the organ first is considered to not be entirely fair, seeing as though people who damaged their own lungs by smoking would get a new pair before a child with cancer. There are so many bioethical issues, but I chose to focus on euthanasia. Euthanasia is described as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma.” When a patient chooses to commit euthanasia, the attending physician will administer a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient. This drug will shut down their organs, and eventually the patient passes away. Some think that euthanasia should be legalized because of the option it gives to patients facing death. Others, including most of the world, think that it shouldn’t be administered because it is unjust to assist someone commit suicide. Unlike most countries, however, I believe that euthanasia should be legal to practice.
Euthanasia is a way to help the patients at their own request to help them. For many cases, it helps them to avoid dealing with the days where they will slowly deteriorate, medically and emotionally. Polls about why patients choose euthanasia show that their decision was based off of a mixture of illness-related experiences, threats to sense of self, and fears about the future. For many, death would be the ultimate choice over life. Putting medical issues aside, patients feel a threat to their sense of self. Diseases are so serious, and cause patients to deteriorate so quickly that they lose track of who they once were. Illness-related experiences such as falling can seriously affect a patient’s morale and will to live. It poses as a threat to oneself and who they were before they became a patient. Of those who opted to endure euthanasia, 90% reported a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, 90% reported loss of autonomy, and 65% reported loss of dignity. These are serious factors that affect someone’s will to live, especially at this late stage of life. If it would make the patient feel better and more comfortable about what the patient endures and experiences throughout their last days alive, there is no doubt that euthanasia should be legalized and administered.
Euthanasia is also a way to prevent the patient from suffering. For many diseases, like cancer, the side effects are intolerable. Throughout a patient’s course of treatment, they are given a choice for every medical decision. Every surgery, every medication, every visit to the hospital is entirely up to them. Currently, patients can even sign Do Not Resuscitate, or DNR papers. This means that if their heart stops while they are under the care of the hospital, they do not want to be revived and brought back to life. Obviously this is a less extreme version of euthanasia, because their body stopped on its own without medication, but it is still along the same lines. If patients can make this decision for themselves, it seems right that they would be able to make the decision of euthanasia. Of course doctors most always recommend certain courses of treatment, but ultimately the choice is left to the patient. With this being said, why should it be fair that at the end of their life, they can’t decide their fate when it comes to arguably the most important part of life. In 2014, William Dresser, who was 88 years old at the time, shot his wife in the chest because for her wellbeing there was simply no other option, not even an attempt at surgery. Frances Dresser was William's wife, and she was paralyzed from the neck down due to a fall at home. Paralysis left her with no joy left in life, only excruciating pain, and she exclaimed on multiple occasions that she had lost her will to live. Her grandson even remarked, “It is impossible to imagine her living without those pleasures, without her basic human dignity, and in a state of constant physical pain.” Frances herself couldn’t imagine that kind of life, either, so she asked her husband to end her suffering. After he kissed her, William shot her because he felt the need to acknowledge and fulfill her wishes. He was arrested and put in jail because of this “murder,” but it was only out of his love for her. This whole incident could’ve been avoided with the legalization of euthanasia, but the sad reality is that it happened. It is only right that euthanasia should be legalized so that patients will have their own choice. If it were treated like all of the medicines that already exist, doctors can speak for or against it, but the choice whether to go through with it or not is left up to the person it is directly affecting.
In nearly every country in the world, euthanasia is illegal. One of the main reasons why this is the case is because there is no way to definitely say that the choice to commit euthanasia is entirely the patient’s own. The European Convention on Human Rights concluded that “the right to life did not give any right to self-determination over life and death.” This means that patients should not have the right to decide their fate of life and death, and there are many factors contributing to why this conclusion has been made. In many cases, the patient may have an unsound mind. If they are not completely lucid, yet opt for euthanasia anyway, it might be against what they would decide if they were lucid and aware of what was happening. Another case could be the patient being influenced by other people. As awful as it is to think about, family members could even influence patients for monetary reasons and benefits they could get from the patient’s will. Another potential problem that could influence patients is that if euthanasia were to be legalized, it would potentially solve the lack of medical resources available. While it may solve one problem, it just causes another. This may end up pressuring people to commit euthanasia when it isn’t entirely necessary. This magnifies the issue of how euthanasia could cause problems without proper regulation.
If there is proper regulation of euthanasia, however, there would be no problem with it being legal. In fact, it would benefit many patients. For those who are severely suffering and left with no alternative course of treatment, (and still have a sound mind to determine that they should commit euthanasia) it would present a solution to a large problem. If euthanasia is the end to suffering and a way to preserve one's dignity, there is no doubt that it should be legalized. We should learn from Frances Dresser that when there are no medical options left, and no joy left in life, the best thing would be death.