Voluntary Euthanasia Be Legal

¶ … euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide on ReligiousTolerance.org, most people in North America die "a bad death," one characterized by pain, being unable to participate in their medical treatment program, or after spending over ten days in intensive care. A prevailing belief that any sign of life is preferable to death fuels arguments against the practice of voluntary euthanasia, distinguished from involuntary euthanasia in that the suicide is requested directly by the person in question. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial subjects in medial ethics today. On one side of the argument, organizations like the Hemlock Society have pushed for legislation that permits physician-assisted suicide (PAS). These efforts have met with a degree of success in the United States; in 1994 Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act allowing PAS. However, there is even a distinction between voluntary euthanasia and PAS: with PAS, the physician simply provides the means with which a patient, usually terminally ill, can end his or her life. Voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, can entail a "deliberate intervention, by someone other than the person whose life is at stake," in the suicide (Gula 2). Detractors of voluntary euthanasia often oppose the act on religious grounds but often the controversy is practical in approach as well. Ending a life prematurely entails an interference with the "will of God" or it might mean the denial of a potential recovery. However, most cases of voluntary euthanasia truly deserve the term "death with dignity," as the practice provides a safe, pain-free, personally empowering way to confront our inevitable mortality.

Sometimes opponents of voluntary euthanasia take a non-religious approach to further politicize the subject. For example, Kristen Leutwyler notes that most often, women are the "victims" of assisted suicide, indicating that some euthanasia deaths might not be fully voluntary. In fact, some studies indicate that "Only about a third of the victims described as sick had terminal illnesses," (Leutwyler). However, these statistics can be misleading: the definition of a terminal illness can be as hazy as the definition of euthanasia itself. If more women are the subjects of so-called mercy killings, this does not necessarily point to a gender bias in the practice and could simply mean that more women were analyzed for the purpose of that particular study.

Religiously based arguments against voluntary euthanasia further cloud the fundamental ethical issues at hand. Imposing a set of religious beliefs upon the entire population is dangerous and violates the cherished American separation of church and state. Euthanasia therefore ranks with abortion as a religiously tainted ethical issue. Personal choice and sovereignty are more important than satisfying the consciences of religious groups. However, even some Catholic priests are beginning to understand the motives and merits of "death with dignity," (Gula 1).

The sanctity of life is actually better preserved with legalized euthanasia and PAS. It affirms the power of self-determination and reinforces a belief that being hooked up to life support systems does not necessarily lead to spiritual fulfillment. On the contrary, the artificial extension of life imposes a state-defined state of existence, one that denies personal liberty and the possibility of ending pain and suffering. The terminally ill contend with degrees of physical pain that most moralists cannot fathom. Moreover, voluntary euthanasia is often the only means by which a dying person can regain control of their life. Just as each person should able to choose their own lifestyle, so too should individuals be able to decide when they have had enough of hanging on by a thread.

Permitting terminally ill patients, many of which suffer from extraordinary mental and physical pain, to end their lives also significantly helps the family members of those who suffer. No one likes to watch their loved ones linger in a brain-dead state indefinitely. Voluntary euthanasia is often an expression of compassion for the family members as well as the individual in question also because of the exorbitant medical costs incurred with the artificial extension of life. Euthanasia is often a sacred pact between patient, family, and physician. Voluntary euthanasia is not a spur-of-the-moment decision based on momentary pain; it arises out of chronic illness and a willingness to accept mortality in a healthy manner.

Voluntary euthanasia, by definition, precludes unauthorized mercy killings predicated on delusional or malicious intent. In order for euthanasia to become fully legal, a strict definition should be devised. Voluntary euthanasia is also not depression-related suicide. Mental illnesses that evoke suicidal tendencies can be treated and do not warrant the premature termination of life. However, terminally ill patients who are hooked up to life support equipment or who have suffered irreparable brain damage, are candidates for legalized euthanasia, not angry teenagers or depressed housewives.