Euthanasia, or medically assisted death, is a highly controversial topic around the world, with
some arguing that it provides terminally ill patients with choices on how they want to die and
others arguing that it is a waste of life and can be abused. While countries like Belgium,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia all have legalised euthanasia, it is still illegal in most
places, like most of the USA and the UK.
Euthanasia is commonly used in order to relieve suffering for people with terminal illnesses
or severe, pain-causing conditions. Of course, consent has to be given either by the patient
but in some cases, the decision is made by a family member or a doctor when the patient is
unable to make the decision themselves. Euthanasia can also be passive, when treatment is
withheld to allow the patient to die a natural death or it can be active, where the patient is
given a lethal substance that kills them.
However, it remains an extremely controversial idea to this day, with many arguing that
euthanasia is highly unethical, especially since it can be abused. For example, in cases
where the patient is unable to make decisions, it can definitely be argued that euthanasia
should not be an option as it is simply unfair for someone else to have the power to end
another’s life, especially if it may turn out that the decision-maker did not have the patient’s
best interests in mind. Yet, even in regular cases, most people do have emergency contacts
and people who they trust to make medical decisions for them, and in these cases, the
decisions made can also drastically impact the patient. So, why should the case of
euthanasia be any different? While it can be said that the stakes are definitely much higher,
the argument, if anything, highlights an issue that impacts the idea of medical decision
making as a whole.
Apart from this, another argument is that the decision to carry out euthanasia, even if made
by the patient, can be invalid if the patient is not in their right mind. However, it is important
to note that euthanasia, even when legal, has many policies surrounding it to ensure safety
of all parties involved. And one of these policies is, of course, carrying out things such as
psychiatric interviews to ensure that patients are capable of making judgements in their best
interests. So, while the effects of carrying out euthanasia are obviously extreme and may
also make the idea of choosing to die more widely thought about and accepted, it is
significant to note that it is, as much as possible, carried out in a manner that is safe and in
the patient’s best interests.
But the main argument against euthanasia is about how people think it wastes life. Yet even
this seems like a somewhat invalid point. How do we check if people are ‘alive’? We check
for a heartbeat. Yes, euthanasia definitely ends life in a legal manner but, for most people
willing to undergo euthanasia, their life is already over. While this argument values physical
life the fact is, life is so much more than that. It’s about being able to do your favourite
activities, eat your favourite foods, being comfortable in your everyday life. For many
terminally ill people or people with severe conditions, their quality of life is lower and, the
reality is, these things just aren’t possible. So, it seems that the argument at its core, really
implies that it is better to live a prolonged but unhappy life rather than a short but free and
happy one. While some people may feel this way, not all do, and it is simply unfair to force
these people to suffer and remain unhappy because other people feel that it is best.
Euthanasia, though impacting families and friends of patients, is ultimately the decision of
the patient and so, why should other peoples’ views on life limit a patient’s options and
prevent them from making decisions that impact their own wellbeing?
Finally, there is the issue of the extent to which making euthanasia illegal really prevents the
issues that most people see euthanasia causing. Personally, I don’t think it does. In fact, it
may make these issues worse. Euthanasia, though allowing a patient to die, does so in a
safe and usually painless manner depending on the patient’s wishes. On the other hand,
with euthanasia being illegal, patients who are at such levels of pain or powerlessness that
they would even contemplate euthanasia could, unfortunately, likely resort to other, more
dangerous methods of ending their lives. While this is, of course, an extreme, it is also a very
real consequence and one that highlights the sheer discomfort and pain that making
euthanasia illegal can leave a patient in, both mentally and physically.
All in all, while the matter is not one to be dealt with lightly and is, of course, something
rarely used, it also is something that could benefit countless patients and work towards
making them feel more comfortable with healthcare, which is how all healthcare systems
should aim to make their patients feel. Can euthanasia potentially be unethical in the wrong
circumstances? Yes, but so can almost anything else, making it no different to many already
established protocols in the medical industry.
The healthcare system is supposed to be able to help all patients. But, what happens when
nothing more can be done? What can healthcare systems really do then? At the end of the
day, euthanasia gives terminally ill patients more control of their lives and allows them to end
their sufferings in ways that they are comfortable with. Although rules and regulations must
be in place to make this a safe process, legalising euthanasia will undoubtedly help many
and, societies, by restricting it, are really just preventing healthcare systems from assisting
the people that they swear to help.
Comments