Euthanasia: Arguments For and Against Legalization

Introduction

Euthanasia is an emotionally charged topic of debate, and it is easy to lose sight of the facts when people discuss wanting to end their lives for whatever reason. Most people who seek physician-assisted suicide are suffering from terminal illnesses that cause them a great deal of pain that cannot be adequately controlled with medications. For these individuals, the relief of death is preferred over continuing suffering. The ethical debate over euthanasia is colored by millennia of human thinking concerning the value of life and by long-standing moral proscriptions against suicide in any form.

Humans can be said to truly own one thing outright: their lives. There are laws in most countries, however, that prevent people from taking their own lives or having a physician assist them in the process. Advocates of euthanasia maintain that an individual's right to autonomy means people are automatically entitled to physician-assisted suicide and a relatively painless death (Sinha & Basu, 2012). Opponents argue that physicians should not participate in physician-assisted suicide because the practice would violate the central tenet of the medical profession (Sinha & Basu, 2012). The ethical debate over euthanasia has intensified in recent years as Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide and countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium have also legalized the practice, with more people opting for this way to end their lives (Marcoux & Mishara, 2007).

Defining Euthanasia and Its Types

This paper provides a review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature to demonstrate that euthanasia is a humane and acceptable practice that should be implemented by the United States, using the Netherlands as a model, followed by a summary of key research findings in the conclusion.

The term euthanasia is derived from Greek and means a "gentle and easy death" (Keown, 2002). In this context, it is reasonable to suggest that everyone would support this type of passing, and advocates argue that it should be a fundamental right. Beyond improving palliative care and expanding hospices, euthanasia advocates are "arguing that doctors should in certain circumstances be allowed to ensure an easy death not just by killing the pain but by killing the patient" (Keown, 2002, p. 10). Sinha and Basu define euthanasia "as the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering. Typically, the physician's motive is merciful and intended to end suffering" (p. 177). The precision of the definition is vitally important because some misleading definitions are used intentionally to support or refute the legalization of euthanasia (Somerville, 2003).

When physicians take deliberate actions to end a patient's life, it is referred to as active euthanasia. By contrast, when physicians withhold the resources needed to maintain life, it is termed passive euthanasia (Sinha & Basu, 2012). There are three different types of active euthanasia: (1) voluntary euthanasia, performed at the patient's request; (2) involuntary euthanasia, also known as "mercy killing," which involves ending the life of a patient who has not requested it, with the intent of relieving pain and suffering; and (3) nonvoluntary euthanasia, carried out when the patient is not in a position to give consent (Sinha & Basu, 2012, p. 177).

Because the end result is essentially the same regardless of whether physicians take deliberate actions to end a patient's life or simply withhold life-sustaining treatment, some observers maintain that passive and active euthanasia are morally indistinguishable. As Marcoux and Mishara note, "Some people believe that there is no moral distinction between acts or omissions that result in death. They contend that 'passive' and 'active' euthanasia are morally equivalent. However, legislation as well as medical practice invariably distinguish between these practices" (2007, p. 235).

Arguments in Support of Euthanasia

Notwithstanding the arguments in support of euthanasia, many critics rely on age-old proscriptions about killing and the imperative to prevent death. Nelson emphasizes that "it generally is assumed in our society that the act of suicide should be prevented. This assumption is founded upon another, more basic assumption, which holds that life is preferable to death" (1984, p. 1328). It is reasonable to suggest, however, that these assumptions are not applicable to everyone — particularly those with terminal illnesses who suffer enormous pain while waiting for nature to take its course. As Keown explains, "Euthanasia is the belief that death would benefit the patient, that the patient would be better off dead, typically because the patient is suffering gravely from a terminal or incapacitating illness" (p. 10).

Proponents of euthanasia have become increasingly vocal in recent years, spurred by high-profile cases. Sinha and Basu (2012) report that "advocates demanding autonomy for patients regarding how and when they die have been increasingly vocal during recent years, sparked by the highly publicized cases of Drs. Jack Kevorkian, Timothy Quill, and Aruna Shanbaug. These cases have centered on the plight of dying patients with terminal illnesses" (p. 177). Marcoux and Mishara similarly note that "debates concerning euthanasia have become more frequent during the past two decades" (2007, p. 235). Many legislative debates have drawn on opinion polls that indicate sustained and strong public support for the legalization of euthanasia (Marcoux & Mishara, 2007). Indeed, a majority of the population in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States favor legalizing euthanasia (Marcoux & Mishara, 2007).

Conclusion

Do people have a fundamental right to die when they want? Advocates of euthanasia maintain that people do in fact possess this right under certain circumstances and that some people — such as those suffering from terminal illnesses — will be better off dead than alive. Critics of legalizing euthanasia argue that the practice is morally wrong and that, because it requires at least two people including a physician, legalizing it would be harmful to the medical profession as well as to society at large.