Euthanasia in All Its Forms

Euthanasia in all its forms has become a topic for extreme public debate. Sadly, the issue is not a public one at all but a very personal and excruciating decision that requires self- and social mediation to develop. Over the last few years, organizations have become decidedly split at least publicly falling into two camps, those who believe active euthanasia should be allowed to all who believe their life is not worth living and that the medical and legal communities should support this and those who believe that all acts including even the most passive acts of euthanasia, such as the removal of feeding tubes should be legally and morally banned. The "truth" of the matter is that there are many more middle road positions that support a more personal emphasis on the subject. Three experts on the subject, Conolly, Humphry and Lederman will be compared in this work to show that there is a compromise to be had, that will respect the individual and curtail the medical community from aggressive acts that prolong suffering rather than "life."

Conolly's view on personal responsibilities with regard to euthanasia is that is its the personal responsibility of each human to sustain life in a humanitarian manner, including allowing the natural coarse of death to take human life, where it is unavoidable. Conolly feels that people must understand that there is no obligation to sustain treatments that are clearly not working, and prolong life to a point where the act of dying is feared. He contends that hard cases do not warrant legislating active euthanasia as the balance would go unchecked and such laws would disproportionately effect those who are most vulnerable, as they suffer most tragically, the poor and the disenfranchised. "The first problem is that once we take ourselves to the right actively to terminate human life, we will have no means of controlling it." (158)

Connolly's view on medical responsibilities are that the existing system needs to put in check the utilization of what he terms useless technology to prolong life and therefore suffering and instead seek to improve and extend existing utilization of palliative care. An example he uses is medical professionals abysmal use of aggressive technological medicine, underutilization of pain medication and lack of compassion. "Experience with hospice care in England and the United States has shown repeatedly that in every case, pain and suffering can be overwhelmingly reduced. In many cases in can be abolished altogether." (159) in short Conolly, asserts that personal responsibility lies in seeking out appropriate care for the dying patient rather than giving them the dire responsibility of choosing to end their own life to save their family from what can be a valuable time of healing, and that medical care needs to focus more on palliative care and less on aggressive and useless prolonging of suffering.

Humphrey on the other hand is demonstratively in favor of euthanasia, though in a markedly passive form, such as the removal of naso-gastric feedings, that have prolonged the life of a comatose patient. Humphrey believes that the personal responsibility of the individual is to be allowed the comfort of knowing that they do not have to prolong life if the life is not worth living. "The American Medical Association's decision to recognize that artificial feeding is a life-support mechanism and can be disconnected from hopelessly comatose patients is a welcome, if tardy, acceptance of the inevitable." This action according to Humphrey allows personal responsibility for family decision making to be broadened to a reasonable level.

Humphrey also lays strong claims for the medical responsibilities of euthanasia because of the overemphasis on life-support to prolong human suffering rather than allow certain and peaceful death. Humphrey's believes that the medical community needs be an example to individuals by stopping making decisions for the family based on technological progress of aggressive treatments. "People dread having their loved ones put on such equipment if it means they are never likely to be removed if that proves later to be the mores sensible coarse." (155) in short, Humphries contends that passive euthanasia is a personal and private responsibility and that the medical responsibility lies in stepping back and allowing individuals to make such decisions without fear of reprisal.

Ledermans's more personal account is of herself having to make decisions for a loved one, when that loved one, her 90-year-old grandmother was not able to make them herself. Her stand is one of waning the medical community to see, compassionately how difficult it is to follow the wishes of a loved, one, even when they are known. It is the expression fo a personal struggle to let her grandmother's wishes be achieved, never to go to a nursing home, be experimented on or become dependant on others for care. Her example is one that pits her against the medical community, who is programmed to keep her grandmother alive "The doctor's wanted desperately to save her; that's what doctors are programmed to do. To deal with the bleeding, they performed an endoscopy...when that didn't work they wanted to do another. I said enough."

Lederman's view on medical responsibility is that they should allow the individual and family to make decisions that are right for them, and do so with compassion, rather than extreme coarseness. One example she gives is of the manner in which she was spoken to when she started to resist treatment for her grandmother. They asked her questions like; "How can you let her bleed to death?" A guilt driven approach to manipulating individual decisions. In short Lederman contends that personal responsibilities to make decisions regarding euthanasia are difficult enough and that the medical responsibilities need to be kept in check, within a compassionate reality.