Euthanasia – Should Euthanasia Be Legalized?
Essay Preview: Euthanasia – Should Euthanasia Be Legalized?
Report this essay
Euthanasia
Should Euthanasia Be Legalized?
Euthanasia comes from a Greek word, meaning “easy death” and is defined in the Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individualsÐ in a relatively painless way or reasons of mercy.”
There are three types of euthanasia and they are classified as passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia is when medical treatment for a critically ill or injured patient is stopped and the patient is allowed to die. This could mean the removal of a respirator that supports the dying patient.
Active euthanasia on the other hand is when someone (usually either a physician or a family member) takes the life of the terminally ill patient. This could mean giving the patient a lethal injection so that the patient dies from the lethal injection instead of their illness or injury.
Assisted suicide is used to describe the case where someone (once again usually either a physician or a family member) fulfills the request to help a patient die. This usually involves a terminally ill patient who cannot complete the act alone, but the actual act of killing would be done by the patient themselves.
Legalizing euthanasia has been heatedly debated for years because it challenges the very core of our beings. We as humans have a conscience and our sense of morals and beliefs, and we ask ourselves, is euthanasia considered mercy killing or murder? Are we showing mercy by relieving someone of their pain and suffering or are we deliberately taking a life?
I believe that in some cases, the act of euthanasia can be merciful to those who are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain or distress, and it would be inhumane to force them to live in order to suffer, but legalizing euthanasia would in fact raise more issues of ethicality and in the long run, it would harm society as a whole.
The Netherlands is the first country to legalize euthanasia, but euthanasia still remains illegal in most countries, and considered a criminal offence in Britain, punishable by 14 years of imprisonment. Active euthanasia is banned in most countries because it requires the actual act of killing a person. However, passive euthanasia has been recently made legal in the United States and Canada.
The issue of euthanasia was first brought into the public eye when the parents of coma patient Karen Ann Quinlan requested that she be removed from a respirator. Her case was approved in 1976 by the New Jersey Supreme Court. It became the first instance of a courts approving passive euthanasia as legal, but at that time, the issue of active euthanasia or assisted suicide wasnt even considered for legalization.
The case of Nancy Cruzan however raised a different view towards euthanasia. Unlike the Quinlan case, Nancy Cruzan wasnt on a respirator, but a feeding tube that provided her with hydration and nutrition. After many years in court, the Cruzans were allowed to have her feeding tube removed, and after which Nancy Cruzan died. The Cruzans considered this as a form of passive euthanasia, but this still raised a lot of eyebrows because many considered that by removing the girls feeding tube, she is actually starving to death.
These cases show that different cases of euthanasia are not easily categorized and making passive euthanasia legal, but not the other two may not be the best solution.
The strongest argument for euthanasia is mercy – it is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain or distress.
In recent years however, techniques of pain control has improved immensely and the better response not to kill patients in pain, but to make sure that the medicine and technology available to control pain is used widely and completely. Research in 2002 has shown that almost all pain faced by terminally ill patients call be relieved by simple treatments generally without troublesome side effects.
In some cases like epilepsy, the only way to control pain is to sedate the patient into unconsciousness, and some people believe that there is no difference between total sedation and euthanasia. However, pain can be controlled without accepting considerable sedation in up to 90% of terminally ill cancer patients.
Another alternative to euthanasia is palliative care. Palliative care is the physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying patient. It includes compassion and support for and from their family and friends. Competent palliative care may be enough to prevent a person feeling any need to consider euthanasia.
Medicine is motivated by the compassion physicians feel for the sick and dying. They experience daily the pain and suffering that their patients go though and it is this that urges physicians and scientists alike to come up with means to ease the pain of the patients and prolong life. Allowing euthanasia would discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill, because the solution would just be to kill them.
Euthanasia may also provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people, and in places where health resources are scarce, considering euthanasia might free resources needed to help people with curable diseases.
Cost shouldnt be important where saving lives are concerned. This should not be supported because in a1998 study, researchers have found that doctors who are cost-conscious and Ðpractice resource-conserving medicine are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally ill patients, and that is both morally and ethically wrong. In other words, medical costs do influence doctors opinions in this area of medical ethics and they are more likely “perform euthanasia” so they can save money or free hospital beds.
With that comes the worry that physicians would abuse legalized euthanasia. Doctors have already been shown to make improper decisions, ignoring the guidelines of the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council, and the Royal College of Nursing. An Age Concern dossier in 2000 showed that doctors put ÐDo Not Resuscitate orders on elderly patients without consulting them or their families. There is also evidence that ÐDo Not Resuscitate orders are more commonly used for the elderly and, in the United States, for black people, alcohol abusers, non-English speakers, and people infected with HIV. This suggests that doctors have stereotypes of who is not worth