Should Euthanasia be Legal?

Abstract

Euthanasia, as Math and Chaturvedi (2012) point out, is a Greek word which means a peaceful or merciful death. Euthanasia can be induced by a doctor or it can be voluntary. Debate about the legality or morality of euthanasia has been raging on for a long time. While some are convinced that the same is immoral and ought to be considered illegal, there are those who are of the opinion that euthanasia should be legalized. This text delves into the debate revolving around the legality of euthanasia. More specifically, it explores whether euthanasia should be legalized.

Introduction

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that in basic terms, euthanasia is a medical act to end of life. A physician removes supportive measures or withholds treatment or introduces a lethal substance upon the consent of a patient (Math and Chaturvedi, 2012). Voluntary euthanasia is medically and legally accepted but it creates ethical dilemmas to physicians as there are ethical principles that clearly highlight their role in as far as advancing the wellbeing of patients is concerned, i.e. in relation to protecting and ensuring that no harm befalls patients. The issue of euthanasia is regarded as the act of making death easier via the cooperation of a doctor and not the act of good dying as it was formerly deemed. Others view the issue as unethical and immoral since they believe that with the legalization of euthanasia, physicians are given the right to murder patients at will. Such ethical debates arising from this debate lead to the question of whether euthanasia should be legalized or not.

While there are those who agree that it should be legalized, others take a hardline position that it should be not. It has been argued that euthanasia is a better option when a patient has a long terminal illness or has been in coma for a long time. Some argue that euthanasia is a form of murder and is against the rights and beliefs of patients and/or their kin. There are various ethical issues in health care that come into play on this front (Math and Chaturvedi, 2012). In this paper, I will discuss the issue of physician assisted suicide and whether it should be legalized or not. Physician assisted suicide-PAS refers to the move by a physician to end the life of a patient by prescribing lethal medications to the said patient upon request (Banovic, Turanjanin, and Miloradovic, 2017). In addition, I will discuss historical perspective on past and present ethical and legal issues relating to physician-assisted suicide.

Literature Review

In case of a serious medical illness, there are jurisdictions around the world that permit physicians or in some instances nurses, to administer a lethal medication to a patient so as to end suffering and hence end life (Gerson et al, 2019). Some countries such as Switzerland allow non-physicians to assist in end of life undertakings unlike in other countries whereby such assistance ought to emanate from physicians only. Jurisdictions that have passed laws on assisted dying are from countries inclusive of, but they are not limited to; various US states, state of Victoria in Australia, Quebec, and Canada, Luxembourg, and Belgium ( Gerson et al., 2019, p. 113). However, such jurisdictions have passed laws that prevent misuse and abuse of the said practice by putting in place the relevant procedures, criteria, and safeguards. Such procedures and criteria also vary across different states. According to Gerson et al. (2019), people may hasten their death with or without assistance. Further, the authors suggests that assisted dying can either be administered by a physician or an individual can administer the lethal dose by himself after a prescription from a physician as long as there are legally sanctioned reasons for such administration.

First, physician assisted suicide in all allowing jurisdictions requires that the request be persistent over time, informed, well-considered, and voluntary (Pereira, 2011). The law in such jurisdictions also requires that the person requesting PAS be competent at the time of request and have a written consent. However, even with such safeguards, some people could still manage to access assisted suicide without a written consent (Pereira, 2011). The author further suggests that attempts to bring such cases to trial, i.e. in relation to those involved, usually fail. In other cases, an individual may have the capacity but has not provided consent due to coma or dementia, in which case the case is non-voluntary. In such istances, Pereira (2011) points out that physicians assist in suicide with the belief that it would have been in the best interest of the person. The author further argues that a written consent is very important if abuse and misuse is to be avoided.

Second, it is important that all jurisdictions that permit assisted suicide report those cases to the relevant agencies, i.e. the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee. This is crucial in efforts to ensure proper follow-up if need be and minimize instances of abuse. There may also be need for a second physician to be consulted before PAS is conducted. In other countries such as Belgium, a third physician should be consulted (Pereira, 2011). The author suggests that in the case that a consulted physician finds fault in...…persons. The legal system believes in dignity and worth of every person and it has the fundamental mandate to protect such people. It would be prudent to note that legalizing PAS would lead to the view that it is a less personally demanding and cheaper solution compared to other forms of treatments (Geomally, 1997). It should also be noted that legalizing PAS would put the lives of the less fortunate in the society at risk since it would be regarded as the only option available to relieve them of emotional and financial stress. Another concern raised for not legalizing PAS has got to do with the fact that if it is legalized, some conditions would remain undiagnosed given that PAS could morph into an easier route towards treatment (Pereira, 2011). In the long term, this could have the effect of harming the entire medical research field. Closely related to this particular assertion, physicians should always be encouraged to explore all possible treatment avenues and to discuss other treatment alternatives as well as medical interventions with their patients before settling for assisted suicide (Goligher et al, 2017).

Conclusion

The debate on whether to legalize or not to legalize euthanasia is a worldwide issue that spans across multiple realms and not just the medical one. This is more so the case given that both ends of the debate in this case have compelling pros and cons. Towards this end, I would recommend that the discussion be explored from an interdisciplinary perspective so as to find middle ground. In this text, convincing arguments have been floated in support of PAS. However, equally compelling arguments have been presented in opposition to the same. Some argue that alternatives to treating terminal illnesses should be pursued and implemented in clinical settings instead of taking the cowardly route of PAS. At present, alternatives are inclusive of palliative sedation whereby medications are administered to create unconsciousness in case of extreme pain and/or discomfort. Unlike euthanasia, this approach is not intended to hasten death but to create comfort. Palliative care is an instrumental approach that should be taken into consideration in efforts to restore the dignity of patients who have lost hope. The said care could also be used for patients who view their illnesses as burden to their families. However, there may be need to also come to terms with the fact that at present, the said approaches may not be entirely sufficient in all scenarios. This is more so the case in those scenarios whereby all efforts in clinical settings have failed to, for instance, contain a patients pain and agony as a…