Robert Dent, a cancer patient who died of an injection, requested by himself, wrote:

“If I were to keep a pet animal in the same condition I am in, I would be prosecuted. If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don’t use it, but don’t deny me the right to use it” (New York Times, 1996).

During my ICU block, I treated a patient who overdosed on pharmaceutical medication due to depression. During the social worker’s session with the patient she realized that the patient’s depression was caused by her daughter’s illness. Her daughter was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 15 and after a year of chemotherapy treatment she was in complete remission. Ten years went by without any problems when her daughter was suddenly diagnosed with cancer again. This time around the doctors did not have good news. She has been living with cancer for the past five years and deteriorating day by day to the point where doctors have declared her as terminally ill. The patient’s daughter, herself, tried to commit suicide two times due to her condition and not wanting to live with her pain anymore. This happened after reaching out to varies people and doctors not being able to help her with her condition. This whole incident lead me to think about what the patient and her daughter is going through day by day, if she has the right to want to end her own life, and if her daughter has the right to end her life due to her medical condition.

The word euthanasia is a combination of the Greek words Eu (good) and Thanatos (death). Merriam-Webster dictionary defines euthanasia as “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 for reasons of mercy”. This is a highly debated topic and includes aspects of moral, social, legal and financial concerns .

The moral debate involves people’s religious and social beliefs. Every person has their own set of morals and values that act as a “guide-line” throughout one’s life (McNamara, 2012). These set of morals distinguish between right and wrong in decisions to be made during an individual’s life span. The debate on euthanasia will usually depend on the individual, their moral beliefs and will differ from individual to individual. The legal debate is a big issue with both proponents and opponents striving to win. The main legal argument is whether or not a citizen has the constitutional right to choose between life and death. As it stands now, the Supreme Court ruled we do not have the constitutional right to choose (Koenane, 2017).

Another debate regarding euthanasia is the financial effect on the individual and their families. The surgeries, doctor’s fees, medication and life support can add up to an overwhelming amount, whereas the cost to letting a person die (financially) is close to nothing compared to keeping them alive.

Herranz, G. (2014) states that there are possibly four primary solutions which could be argued for and against euthanasia, by following a certain criteria. These aspects include:

Personal: Is the patient terminal and suffering? Does he/she choose to die?

Medical: Is it ethical? Did the patient accept all possible treatment and still terminal and suffering?

Religious: Is it moral and have the individuals involved considered their actions concerning their beliefs.

Legal:  Is it a crime to assist a terminally ill patient in dying?

The question however still remains:

Who has the right to decide the answers to the above questions?

Opponents of euthanasia feel that legalization would not be supported by the public and if it is passed, there would be no assurance of protection from abuse from opposing parties. According to Susan Okie, recent surveys reflect that less than 16 percent of physicians admit to receiving requests for euthanasia and only 4 percent have taken action (Koenane, 2017).

The opponents of legalizing euthanasia states that not enough care is provided to patients and that legalization will cause people to be killed when they do not want to die. In a book written by, Dr John Keown, he talks about the slippery slope of killings others than those who clearly state they want to die. He states: “Safeguards, he claims, have proved ineffectual. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now widely practiced and increasingly condoned. His alternative is a strong advocacy of palliative care: a mix of proper pain management, symptom control, psychological and spiritual support” (Killing With Kindness, p 16).  Herranz (2014) state that palliative care should be more of a focus point. It states that 80% of more than two million people who pass away each year are those in care facilities. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics at the BMA, says that:

“Doctors have become more aware that palliative care is effective. Temptation may come when adequate care is not available. But that’s exactly what doctors and families should be demanding, not euthanasia. Once we have a perfect palliative care system, that is the time to look at the issue”

Rachels (2017) states that the best solution for euthanasia is through controlled regulation. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society has already established proposals for a voluntary euthanasia law. Some requirements are: the patient must be a mentally competent, incurably ill adult that is suffering unbearably; request must be in writing; must seek a second medical opinion and psychiatric assessment; the final decision must be the patient’s alone; and only a doctor may perform the act. By decriminalizing the act of euthanasia, doctors no longer need to worry about prosecution and can freely choose to help or not to help a patient end their suffering. State laws or regulations governing physician-assisted suicide will be necessary to protect against abuse and ensure that assisted-suicide is conducted professionally and fairly (Koenane, 2017).

A better way to ease the misery and the suffering is to respect the individual’s right to choose the best course of action for their life and their death. Those who are pro-choice, believe “the decision how and when to die is one of the most intimate and personal choices a person can make in a lifetime, a choice central to personal dignity and autonomy. How a person does not only determine the nature of the final period of existence, but in many cases, the enduring memories held by those who love him” (Herranz, 2014). If nothing is done about the euthanasia issue, our society will continue to turn a blind eye to the issue and people will continue to seek alternatives behind closed doors. Society must become educated on the issue of euthanasia and lobby the politicians for effective and realistic changes to the law so that they can protect physicians from prosecution and individuals will finally have the right to choose death instead of misery.

References:

“Australian Man First in World To Die With Legal Euthanasia.” The New York Times Sept 26 1996: A5. Proquest Direct.

Herranz, G. (2014). Euthanasia. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 6(2), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq20066251

Koenane, M. L. J. (2017). Euthanasia in South Africa: Philosophical and theological considerations. Verbum et Ecclesia, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v38i1.1549

McNamara, C. (2012). What are Values, Morals, and Ethics? Bussiness ethics, Cultures and Performance.

Rachels, J. (2017). Active and passive euthanasia. In Applied Ethics: A Multicultural Approach: Sixth Edition (pp. 423–427). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315097176