The Right to Die
The Right to Die
The Right to Die
The word Euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means “good” and thanatos means “death”. Euthanasia (Greek, “good death”) is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering. However, some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and involuntary termination of life (Humphy 12). Like so many moral/ethical/religious terms, “euthanasia” has many meanings. Euthanasia, in the strict sense, involves actively causing death. This is, in some cases, legal like in the Netherlands, but in few other countries. Euthanasia, in a wider sense, includes assisting someone to commit suicide, in particular physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Allowing death — e.g. by not providing life support or vital medication– is not considered euthanasia if it is the patients wish (Robinson). It is sometimes called passive euthanasia in cases where the patient is unable to make decisions about treatment. “Living Wills” and “Do Not Resuscitate” orders are legal instruments that make a patients treatment decisions known ahead of time; allowing a patient to die based on such decisions is never considered euthanasia. Terminal sedation is a combination of medically inducing a deep sleep and stopping other treatment, with the exception of medication for symptom control (such as analgesia). It is considered to be euthanasia by some, but under current law and medical practice it is considered a form of palliative care (Humphry 14). Advocates of euthanasia generally insist that euthanasia should be voluntary, requiring informed consent, and that it should only be used in cases of terminal illness that cause unbearable suffering, or an eventual, complete loss of awareness. Its opponents challenge it on several ethical grounds, including a slippery slope argument that it is the first step towards compulsory euthanasia (Leon 22).
Voluntary euthanasia is the truest and fullest form of euthanasia wherein the individual requests euthanasia – either during illness or before, if complete incapacitation is expected (a coma would be an example). Euthanasia in these cases differs from suicide by existing only within the context of the amelioration of suffering in the process of death. Volition must be informed and free (i.e. not under duress from any third party) (Capek, Fox, and Kamakahi 33). Involuntary Euthanasia is what some describe as the killing of a person who has not explicitly requested aid in dying. It is often done when resuscitation is not expected, or after severe brain damage that renders a person incapable of making life decisions. Therefore any euthanasia is not voluntary, but also not involuntary. Famously notable as “turning off life-support”, this is most often done to patients who are in a Persistent Vegetative State and will probably never recover consciousness (Wickett, Humphy 41). Involuntary euthanasia is where an individual may distinguish between life and death – and may fully realize the difference between them. Any medical killing is involuntary. If, for example, a man knows he is going to experience severe agony, and does not consent to death, euthanasia imposed upon him is ethically and morally, if not legally, classed as murder. In Nazi Germany the term “euthanasia” (Euthanasie) referred to the systematic killing of disabled children and adults. This has tainted the word in German-speaking countries; the alternate term is “Sterbehilfe”, which means “help to die.” Any time that medical personnel determine on behalf of a sentient and responsible individual that his or her life is not worth living, the medical killing of such a person as it is considered to be done for the prevention of suffering is involuntary euthanasia. This is not to be confused with medical killing in cases of capital punishment or as part of genocide (Robinson).
Proponents of euthanasia argue that only patients can determine when suffering makes life worse than death and that such persons can and should be allowed to make the decision. Some also argue that terminally ill patients are respected more by having their suffering end than by being kept alive against their will. Additionally, a utilitarian argument can be made about the harms to the whole of maintaining the individual beyond viability (Yount 42). They also believe that people should have control over their own bodies and that complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. If a person is competent, they should have right to choose death (“End of Life Choices”).
The second type of argument against euthanasia is that it is not prudent to advocate it; that is, eventually we all may be suffering, and if we think ahead, we may think it better if the doctors on whom we depend are not tempted