Arguments for and against euthanasia

Euthanasia

There can be little doubt that most humans cherish life to the extent that they would choose immortality in a heartbeat, if that option was ever made available. However, while this observation may undoubtedly be true, there is an unstated qualification. And, that is, that humans will choose life only as long as it is imbued with dignity and vitality. In fact, the importance of this qualification is reflected in arguments favoring euthanasia. For, the case for euthanasia is usually built on the premise that life or the process of dying can prove to be a long and painful process, which slowly robs a person of his or her vitality and dignity. An agreement on the fact that human pain and suffering should be alleviated, and that human dignity is important, does not, however, automatically make euthanasia morally permissible or socially desirable. This is because there are several other considerations that need to be taken into account such as: (1) modern science has yet to fully understand the great mystery of life and death; (2) permitting euthanasia is likely to undermine the societal value of upholding the sanctity of life; and (3) euthanasia invites the risk of both individuals and the health care system abusing the option for highly suspect motives. In fact, when these aspects are fully analyzed, it appears that the practice of euthanasia would be wrong because it is likely to lead to grave injustices at both the individual and social level.

But first, perhaps it is important to consider the rights of individuals who are prevented from leading active, purposeful lives by terminal or debilitating illnesses. This question is, in fact, of prime importance because it is the basic premise of any argument in favor of euthanasia. In fact, one can't but help sympathize with the plight of formerly healthy, active people who are told that they are either facing an imminent death or that the disease they have is slowly but surely going to prevent them from leading a productive life. Take, for instance, the case of Edward Wellwood who was told that he had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease. Rather than face the prospect of living in an inert body and burden his family, financially and physically, Mr. Wellwood chose to commit suicide by shooting himself. His sister, Paula Connolly, later expressed the feeling that euthanasia would have offered her brother an easier way out (Schwartz, 2005). But would it have really?

According to Somerville (2003), research has shown that the marker for people wanting euthanasia is a state that psychiatrists call "hopelessness," which is different from depression. This indicates that ill people such as Mr. Wellwood probably opt for an early death because they feel that their situation is devoid of hope. It can be argued, therefore, that what people like Mr. Wellwood really need is counseling. For, not only is medical science constantly making new breakthroughs in the treatment of various diseases, but there are also times when patients simply make a miraculous recovery. For example, Donald Herbert and Terry Wallis began suddenly speaking after spending years in a coma. Gary Dockery began talking after spending eight years in a mute and paralyzed state (BBC News, 2005). Such stories are proof positive that modern science has yet to achieve complete knowledge of the mystery that is life and death. In any case, as observed earlier, medical knowledge is constantly breaching new frontiers, which means that there is always cause for hope that new treatments may succeed in giving ill people a fresh lease of life.

In fact, it is the existence of such hope that probably explains the findings of a study that cancer patients in severe pain do not want euthanasia. As Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, lead author of the study, observes, "When you have pain, you want to get rid of the pain, not your life." (Price, 1996) Of course, chances are that such patients also believe in the sanctity of life as a value that must be upheld at all costs. Indeed, this is indicated by the findings of the same study in so much that cancer patients in pain not only thought the practice of euthanasia unethical, but also said that merely discussing the option with their doctor would reduce their trust in that physician (Price, 1996).

True, that the religion of the cancer patients interviewed in the study may have compelled them to believe that life must be valued at all costs. However, it must equally be remembered that respect for the sanctity of life is a foundational societal value, which is inculcated in all citizens. Proponents of euthanasia may argue that people have the right to choose the manner, time, and place of their death (Brock, 1992). But, as Somerville (2003) points out, what such arguments usually fail to take into consideration is that allowing individuals such a right would undermine the capacity of both medicine and law to maintain the respect for human life. In other words, allowing euthanasia would weaken the prohibition on intentional killing, which human society has historically upheld as a sign that human life must be valued (Brock, 1992). Thus, it is not surprising that the cancer patients opined that their trust in their doctors would be impaired if euthanasia was ever discussed as a solution to their constantly being in pain.

Indeed, it appears that the American Medical Association (AMA) agrees with the view taken by the cancer patients. For, this is one of the major reasons why the AMA has taken a strong anti-euthanasia position: "There is, in short, compelling evidence of the need to ensure that all patients have access to quality palliative care, but not of any need for physician-assisted suicide." In addition to this statement, which was issued in an amicus brief in the 9th circuit case for doctor-assisted suicide, the AMA has expressly stated that doctors perform a crucial act of healing and saving life. Accepting a dual role of taking life, while at the same time, protecting life, would undermine their credibility and the sacred trust that exists between a patient and doctor (Life Issues Institute, 1997).