Euthanasia is the act of killing someone who is very old or ill so that they do not have to suffer (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019). One of my patients that I was seeing at the Western Cape Rehabilitation Center was in a motor vehicle accident. He was in the intensive care unit and on a ventilator for quite some time. He had a C4 complete spinal cord injury and was bound to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. One day when I was seeing my patient, he said that he doesn’t know why they didn’t let him die, than to suffer like this. He can’t wash or dress himself, he can’t do anything for himself. That night I could not stop thinking about what he said. I thought to myself what I would do if I was in a situation like this, where I end up being able to do nothing for myself. Would I let someone take care of me for the rest of my life, or would I rather let the doctor end my life peacefully? This lead me to think about the positives and negatives of euthanasia.

While most of the governments are against euthanasia, with their fundamental interest in preserving life, studies have shown that euthanasia allows the patient to die with dignity, by humanely and quickly ending a patient’s suffering. Euthanasia is differentiated between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. With passive euthanasia, the doctor does nothing to bring about the patient’s death, the patient dies of the illness that already affects him or her. In active euthanasia, the doctor does something to bring about the patient’s death, for example giving the patient a lethal injection. (Jecker, et al., 1997)

Each of us has the right to self-determination. As an individual we have the right to do with our life as we please, which includes having the right to decide how to die (Iannone, 2001). The government should not have a say in how a patient decides to die. Death is a private matter, and if no one is placed in any harm due to the patient’s choice, the government should not interfere with this important choice (Hermann, 2014). Euthanasia can help a patient die with dignity, as this ends a patient’s suffering quickly and humanely. This assist a patient to not go through so much pain and allows the patient to decide when the pain is too much to handle, and then allows the patient to end his/her suffering by euthanasia (Hermann, 2014). A patient with a severe illness can become debilitated by it and the patient’s autonomy can be taken away. This leaves the patient with almost no quality of life, and he or she can no longer make fundamental choices (Hermann, 2014). My patient felt that living a life where one can do nothing for themselves is a life full of suffering in which he had no say. He felt like it would have been better for him and his family if he had died.

Furthermore, euthanasia can help a patient’s family and loved ones, by reducing the time of suffering and grief. The death of a person affects other people as well, it is not only a personal affair (Keown, 2002). The patient I saw felt that his disability is a huge burden on his family emotionally and physically. By ending a patient’s life that is suffering and has little chance of getting better, helps the family to move on with their lives and lessen their suffering (Keown, 2002). It has also been debated that euthanasia is practiced on animals when the quality of the animal’s life has diminished. If animals get to be treated and respected like this, why is it different with human suffering? (Hermann, 2014) To keep a patient alive cost a lot of money. The money that is used to keep the patient alive can be used somewhere else that needs it much more, or another patient that has the chance of improving. (Hermann, 2014) If it is decreasing the pain and suffering of a patient, lessening the burden on the health sector, and the patient feels that it is the best for them, then euthanasia should become a consideration.

In contrast, it is believed that the integrity of the medical profession may be compromised by euthanasia. Doctors took an oath promising not to give medicine aiding people who want to die (Emanuel, 1999). The government express that third party involvement might be arbitrary and unfair to the patient. Third parties may want to hasten the death of a patient, due to seeing that person as a burden or they might gain financial benefits. The government is interested in preserving life and are responsible for the safety of their citizens (Hermann, 2014). Doctors realize that making a terminal diagnosis is very hard, as patients may defy the odds. And due to many scientific advances in medicine, diseases and pain can now be managed for many patients (Hermann, 2014). Many religions has forbidden euthanasia due to moral reasons. Several religions believe that it is a sin, it goes against the will of God (Hermann, 2014).

Euthanasia is deciding on one’s death. Making a decision that when the pain or suffering is too much that one is better of dying. This decision is not made lightly, and an individual must have been thinking about it for a period of time. By making a decision to end one’s life when feeling it is best, can lift a burden of one’s loved ones financially and somewhat emotionally. Euthanasia might be forbidden is some religions, but that is the reason that how one dies is up to the person themselves, and should not involve anyone else.

References

Emanuel, E. J., 1999. What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physican-Assisted Suicide?. Ethics, 109(3), pp. 629-642.

Hermann, J. R., 2014. Euthanasia. Science and Politics: An A-to-Z Guide to Issues and Controversies.

Iannone, A. P., 2001. Euthanasia. In: Dictionary of World Philosophy. London, UK: Routledge.

Jecker, N. S., Jonsen, A. R. & Pearlman, R. A., 1997. Bioethics: An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice. illustrated ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Keown, J., 2002. Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legislation. illustrated, reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.