Euthanasia Debate: Exploring the Arguments of the Legalization

Introduction

Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way of reasons of mercy. Euthanasia practices are debated in many countries because of it is such a highly controversial moral issue with many arguments to both sides. Many of these arguments come from the different interpretations of the right to life, the impact it makes on the doctor-patient relationship and the oath doctors make to ‘first do no harm’. Although the number of euthanasia requests and requests granted is increasing, many clinicians stay away from that side of training in fear of crossing ethical lines and losing patients' mutual patient trust.

In this project 'Arguments for euthanasia essay' I will be exploring different perspectives on this topic on if the legalization of euthanasia is progressive or not nationally and globally. I will study and mention how euthanasia began, why the attitudes of different societies matter, the pros and cons of euthanasia, and the perspectives. Concluding with my personal opinion on this topic, I will add my perspective, judgments, and evaluation of resources and information gathered to back up the arguments stated.

Euthanasia

There are three different approaches to euthanasia. There is MAIDPAS, active euthanasia, and passive euthanasia. MAIDPAS is when a physician provides a patient with a lethal drug that the patient can take any time to end their life. Active euthanasia is typically when the lethal injection is given by a physician to their patient and passive euthanasia is when the physician takes away a vital form of life support from a patient that is terminally ill to speed up the process of inevitable death. Public acceptance of euthanasia has increased since 1947 with around 50% of Americans in support of the cause. However, in a recent poll social survey in May 2020, nearly 74% agreed in support of euthanasia. This steady increase of support began in 1935 by Charles Killick who founded The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society, now known as Dignity in Dying. Since then, 10 countries and a few of the states of Australia and the U.S.A, have either legalized euthanasia, PAS, or both. Although the public agrees, according to a study by the Sage Journal, most doctors in the UK were against euthanasia and PAS, mostly due to religious reasons.

Why Attitudes on Legalization Matter

It is important to understand that the patients are not the only ones impacted by the legalization of euthanasia but the physicians, families of the patients, and the mindsets of future patients considering euthanasia. The original Hippocratic Oath states: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” It is important to understand the perspective of the physicians involved with facing the choice of euthanasia and how it emotionally and psychologically affects them. “Doctors describe being profoundly adversely affected, being shocked by the suddenness of the death, being caught up in the patient's drive for assisted suicide, having a sense of powerlessness, and feeling isolated. There is evidence of pressure on and intimidation of doctors by some patients to assist in suicide.” According to this evaluation conducted to discover the impact of participation in euthanasia, countertransference occurs. This talks about the “emotional reaction” that the doctor experiences in response to the patient which can transfer onto their work. Although most physicians refuse to perform euthanasia due to religious reasons, most feel conflicted because of what the Hippocratic Oath states, and having the life of a patient in their hands is morally straining. It is important as well to acknowledge the impact of the experiences from family members of patients who request euthanasia and their mental state afterward. A study showed that after around 14 months after the patient had received euthanasia, 11% of family members were depressed, 2% had prolonged grief and 38% were receiving mental health care. This was compared to family members of patients who did not receive or request euthanasia which showed that 14% were depressed, 0% had prolonged grief, and 41% used mental health services. Overall showed that family members did not have as many negative effects because they were more prepared for the death of the patient and accepted it. More elderly people feel as though their life is no longer worth living and feel as though euthanasia would be best for them. Although there are people who believe they are not productive to society and should be removed if it is their will, changes could be made without letting them die such as a change in social circumstances and new relationships with friends, family members, etc.

Products and Pros of Euthanasia

The pain of the terminally ill however can be too much to bear and the option of euthanasia allows a person to die with dignity and in control of their situation. Free will has been fought for so long so why is it that when it comes to patients, they can’t choose when to die or not? Death is an incredibly private matter and is disrespectful for the state to decide how a patient must die and their right to. There is also an economic perspective to this. The costs to keeping a person alive are expensive and illogical to do especially if there is no treatment for their illness. The possibility of euthanasia allows these rare resources to treat patients who could live instead of supporting those close to death with no cure to save them. And as it is important to acknowledge the perspectives of those close who are affected, they could be spared the trauma and depression of seeing a loved one die an insufferable death because it gets more painful as it goes on. This allows the patient to be mentally prepared, in control, and know what they want to do and when and fulfill their last wishes before passing away. Not legalizing euthanasia for humans but for pets can see as a degradation towards humans because when pets are put down, it is seen as an act of kindness because they don’t want to cause the pet any more harm or pain and want to give them a peaceful release into the world. The same treatment should be available to humans with the same kindness and mercy. When the patient can’t be helped any longer, sometimes the best help is to let their suffering end. They would prefer their last moments not to be of panic in the middle of the night in a hospital bed attached to a tube alone with no one to be by their side. Especially when there is a possibility of giving them a painless death with loved ones by their side at the time that they request.

Consequences and Cons of Euthanasia

Although there are many religious arguments against euthanasia, it is important to broaden our perspective and come to the core of why euthanasia will cause a downfall in society. Euthanasia devalues the importance of human life and would weaken respect for it. This leads to worse care towards the terminally ill. The mindset will change that since they are terminally ill, might as well end it earlier to save hospital resources and that since the patient is going to die, either way, it doesn’t matter what treatment or care they get before their lives end. This crucially damages the doctor-patient relationship that has been respected for so long. The purpose of the doctor-patient relationship is that the doctor will unbiasedly do what is best to the patient to help them recover and relieve pain. The purpose of the doctor is to eliminate pain and suffering, not the patient experiencing it. Solutions in removing the pain should be to improve the healthcare system, and a motivation to find cures, and discover new medicines instead of changing the complete purpose of medical care to allow euthanasia. The purpose of hospitals and medical treatments in the first place was to avoid the patient’s death and find a treatment suitable for their condition, not euthanasia which would eliminate their condition but their life as well. This tears down the foundation that doctors and nurses are there to save lives instead of ending them. Not only that but making euthanasia legal can be seen as a discouragement to searching for treatments for the terminally ill. This leads to a slippery slope into involuntary euthanasia meaning patients who are seen as a problem and undesirable to society due to lack of productivity and less of a contribution to society would be killed which involves the elderly, disabled, and terminally ill. Patients can feel pressured to request for euthanasia due to this degradation which may not only come from family but politicians as well such as Baroness Warnock who suggested that people with dementia should be put down to prevent them from wasting any more resources from the NHS or when Polly Toynbee commented that it wouldn’t be so bad if ‘the frail’ were ‘intimidated’ into rushing the end of their lives. Euthanasia might have been seen in the beginning as a way of relieving unbearable pain from terminally ill patients, but people will use this legalization to their advantage to legally eliminate those who are a problem. This leads back to the first point mentioned that society will learn to degrade and disregard human lives.

National Perspective

Legalizing euthanasia affects different countries individually. Tourism is often seen as a huge economic advantage to some countries, but this kind of tourism doesn’t. When your country doesn’t legalize a product or an action you want to commit, the best place to do it is to go somewhere where it is legal. Like how Thailand is often an American getaway, Switzerland can become the getaway from life quite literally for other foreigners. Death rates have increased significantly since euthanasia has been legalized in certain countries. This leads to a new problem called ‘suicide tourism’ also known as ‘euthanasia tourism’ or ‘death tourism’. Suicide tourism is “associated with the pro-euthanasia movement” where the movement organizes trips for “suicide candidates” where euthanasia is legal to encourage the decriminalization of euthanasia in other cities and countries. These trips can also be organized individually. A study conducted by the Institute of Legal Medicine recorded that between 2008 and 2012, 611 ‘suicide-tourists’ from mainly Germany and the United Kingdom with some from the United States, traveled to Switzerland to take their lives via euthanasia. This is significantly different from medical tourism but follows the same outline. Medical tourism is when patients travel abroad for treatments that are not available where they reside. This treatment can take form as places such as resorts, spas, foreign medicine, etc. In shortened

terms, it is leaving the facilities of your own country “forcing residents of a country to seek medical treatment in another country”. The issue with suicide tourism is traveling abroad for death can be seen as privileged murder. National culture can prevent the development and see the negative impacts of this tourism, but it may be too late and lead to the inevitable slippery slope. A black market could open up if the laws become stricter and there would be private agencies specializing in this specific service as the demand will increase while more places ban euthanasia. In countries where the black market is the strongest is where suicide tourism rates will be highest causing a negative impact on the country’s reputation and beginning to heavily impact its economy as the government is not receiving any money from the black market.

Global Perspective

Legal euthanasia will affect the medical profession worldwide. Attitudes toward this from all around society matter because our society relies on medical treatments to survive and have a prolonged life. Each country’s opinion on legally ending lives for medical purposes will change the course of the industry. It will change tourism rates worldwide and the social consequences will occur. Individuals, not just families will be affected. When tourism rates increase, landlords will have to deal with the mental stress that comes with having a strange rented place every other day just to be carried away not many hours later in a coffin. Although it may be largely rejected now, it has gained more of a following than ever. A slippery slope is something that comes with the package of making it legal. Soon the restrictions and regulations will become looser and from terminally ill it will turn to insufferable pain to mediocre suffering. How can we measure such a thing and prevent actual suicidal patients from faking an illness to receive what they want and by law? This has already happened ever since the Netherlands legalized it in 2002. “A great number of suicides are done by people suffering from depression or other mental illnesses. Legalizing euthanasia puts them in increased danger of being killed instead of being treated and offered a second chance. Under those circumstances, it’s hard to determine their capacity for the autonomy of choice, as well as objectively evaluate their “mental suffering.””. Suicide rates could reach a new high which not only isn’t good for the people or the economy but the politics as well. The higher the death rates, the more there is a tear between the political parties, and with something as valued as death, the conflict will arise and globally could end in the war for the right to choose how you die and not let the government get involved or not changing medical practice and maintaining that doctor-patient relationship and trust. Canada has already started dealing with this issue by making it illegal for US citizens to enter their country for suicide tourism and euthanasia treatment. To get treatment in Canada you have to be eligible for their health services. Although it is good there is a process, there is still a way for suicide tourism to occur. The prevention is helpful but isn’t helpful to explain why this process is in place and why it will only negatively affect the world.

Personal Perspective and Evaluation

While in this project I have had to evaluate my sources wisely and consider if their information was too outdated to rely on or if the organization was not true. I have collected information from several trusted sources such as medical journals, accounts from experts of psychiatry, a number of studies, the U.S National Library and medical sites such as The Ontario Network. I have also collected from smaller groups who have the same focus as the topic of my project. Some information is outdated to 2006 however I was determined not to use statistics from before 2015 as I would consider them too outdated to be specific enough to relay my point. All these statistics were first-hand and only to inform. On the matter of my opinion on the legalization of euthanasia and its importance on society, I believe it should not be and not on a bias for religious reasons. It is too dangerous to allow many more innocent casualties as the elderly and disabled to suffer just to make people believe there is a dignity in dying. There can be a dignity in dying naturally if put into perspective. Therefore, I believe that the topic 'Arguments against euthanasia essay' is very important for our society. The economic hazards and downfall it would cause could cause a break in the chain and harm others, opening more illicit activites to occur involving death. This project has opened my eyes to the complexity of the world and how important it is ton understand both sides of the story. “The American Medical Association's code of medical ethics says 'allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good.'” I trust the experts and believe the cons outweigh the pros in the long-term perspective.