Euthansia and Its Unfairness to the Poor

Euthanasia has become a hotly contested subject in the last few decades. Some are against euthanasia or assisted-physician suicide. Others are for it. The essay titled: "Vulnerable People: Practical Rejoinders to Claims in Favor of Assisted-Suicide," written by Cohn and Lynn favors against legalizing physician assisted-suicide. I will argue that Cohn and Lynn's argument for denying legalization for physician-assisted suicide is sound. The first argument explains physician-assisted suicide may be something that people fear instead of favor due to the notion that someone else will dictate a person's life.

To think that costs and excessive suffering could become the basis for determining whether a person should live or die is frightful. The authors especially made note of those who are poor when considering such thoughts. The poor cannot afford medical expenses like the middle or upper classes can. Therefore, if expenses contribute to the greenlight for a physician-assisted suicide, many poor people may end up killed simply because they would not be able to afford medical bills.

The added pressure to keep up with costs in the opinions of Lynn and Cohn would end up bankrupting families. Families that cannot afford supplemental insurance or pay out pocket would struggle continuously, creating stress and additional suffering for those not wishing to die or not wishing to lose a loved one. The "haves" or the ones that can afford continuous treatment, will become immune to such circumstances, further separating the economic classes in society.

The seemingly practical option thus becomes a coercive option that the poor must face and the rich are immune to. The argument is valid because in countries where euthanasia is allowed, euthanasia has become the option to get rid of poor people and has increased its pool of those they consider viable for euthanasia. "Countries that allow euthanasia have already fallen pretty far, allowing for children and people with mental illnesses to be killed" (Fiano, 2014).

With countries that approved euthanasia becoming comfortable so quickly with killing several groups of people and not just the terminally ill elderly, it begs to consider just how beneficial euthanasia is for everyone. The fear is that poor people will be eliminated in great numbers due to their inability to pay bills and people like the Lithuanian health minister are making these fears a reality Lithuanian health minister Rimante Salaseviciute has recommended those who are terminally ill should be euthanized if they cannot afford to pay their medical bills.

The very thing that people were afraid of has become a reality in countries like Lithuania. Physician-assisted suicide instead of being practical option has become a forced option where those who cannot afford care could very well be euthanized even if their families wish against it. A way to rid the world of the sick and poor, euthanasia has and can become much darker than anticipated.

Lynn and Cohn explained physician-assisted suicide may become an obligation for the poor to endure rather than an option and there is some merit to this statement. The AMA has in its code of ethics a section euthanasia that questions the role of euthanasia in healthcare. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition.

The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient's life. Euthanasia could also readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations (AMA, 2016). The section that states euthanasia could easily reach vulnerable populations shows how euthanasia transforms from a viable option to a forced obligation and removes the choices those in vulnerable populations had. The poor are already looked down upon for "wasting" precious resources and will be further looked down upon if they cannot pay their medical bills during end of life.

In addition, the role of the physician erodes and is replaced by the role of reaper or God. The physician decides the life of an individual and rather than seek to heal and assist those suffering, will instead seek to euthanize those the physician feels cannot be saved or cannot afford to pay. Hospitals and clinics have recently taken the trend towards a business model, a profit model and may want to increase their profits by terminating cases where patients cannot afford care.

In conclusion, euthanasia in theory has several beneficial, practical applications. However, in practice euthanasia takes on a much more sinister tone. People may argue euthanasia reduces overall medical expenses. Hospitals and other medical facilities can reduce their medical expenses by budgeting appropriately.