Active Euthanasia One of the Most Controversial

Active Euthanasia

One of the most controversial debates to concern the medical profession in recent decades is that of 'physician-assisted suicide, or active euthanasia. The very mention of the word 'euthanasia' arouses strong emotions and opinions, both in favor and in opposition. Yet, among the multitude of issues and complex arguments that surround the debate, there is one fundamental human right that must be acknowledged: the individual, and not society, has ultimate control over his/her future. Of course, when applied to the issue of active suicide, the individual relies on the assistance of a physician in carrying out his/her personal wishes, and it is this physician-assistance that draws a great deal of criticism from opponents. However, with many of the arguments against active suicide being centered upon the area of regulation and potential abuse, then not only 'should' physicians be allowed to provide their assistance, but indeed they 'must'. In the interest of ensuring the individual's right to self-determination, and in order to ensure that active suicide occurs in an environment of security and safety, physicians must be allowed to prescribe lethal doses or combinations of drugs to assist terminally ill patients in suicide.

According to Brock, people have an inherent right in making "important decisions about their lives for themselves according to their own values or conceptions of a good life, and in being left free to act on these decisions" (1992). It follows then that this fundamental right of self-determination should apply equally to death as it does to life. Certainly, as is often pointed out by opponents, care must be taken to ensure that the individual has the mental capacity and clarity to objectively exercise their right to decide their own fate. Rather than a justification for opposing active suicide, this surely serves to reinforce the importance of involving the medical professionals within the process. For who, if not physicians have the knowledge and experience to accurately and objectively make such judgements. Other opponents of PAS argue that the taking of life, regardless of the circumstances, is incompatible with the ethics and commitment to care that underlie the medical profession. Yet, is it ethical for a physician, or anyone else, to overrule the express wishes and personal decisions, made by an individual about their own life? Equally, the definition of 'caring' cannot be distorted to include standing by and permitting another human being to either suffer from constant and incurable pain, or to drift inevitably towards a quality of life that is so unbearable that he/she requests an end to their nightmare. Among the greatest benefits of medicine, to humankind, has been the relief of pain and suffering. Physician-assisted suicide is merely a logical, and ethical, extension of that aim.

Another common argument used to oppose active euthanasia is that, if legalized, there is a great risk of the number of assisted deaths spiraling out of control, with an added danger of unscrupulous families or physicians abusing the system. This 'slippery slope' theory owes more to atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime, than to any objective or empirical evidence. The number of people requesting physician-assisted euthanasia would be as small as that which currently persuades others to act illegally in order to ease their suffering. Such an argument displays a frighteningly high level of paranoia, and worryingly low level of faith in the individual's desire for life and in the integrity of the medical profession. Human beings have an incredible will to live, and it is only when that life is no longer worth fighting for that anyone would resort to seeking assistance in ending it. If an individual's suffering is such that they would prefer to die, then no one else has the right to deny them that final choice.

The debate on active euthanasia often focuses on whether or not physicians should be permitted to assist terminally ill patients to end their life peacefully. Of greater relevance would be a campaign to ensure that active euthanasia should be restricted only to the assistance of physicians. Simply decriminalizing euthanasia would result in a similar situation to the present, with desperate individuals seeking assistance from already distraught family members. Only if active euthanasia were legally restricted to physician assistance would opposition arguments of system abuse and lack of safeguards be allayed. Permitting physician-assisted euthanasia allows the physicians to become actively involved in the decision making process, with the patient and their family, which would ensure important safeguards and allow the appropriate level of information and palliative care was available throughout the decision-making process.