The Euthanasia Debate: Ethics, Rights, and Public Opinion

Introduction: The Case for Euthanasia

The topic of euthanasia has sparked numerous debates in recent years, as many continue to consider the procedure wrong and unworthy of legal support. Euthanasia has become a notable solution for people who are in extreme pain and who are reluctant to continue living when their situation is critical and their health condition is unlikely to improve. It is particularly troubling that many individuals cannot be euthanized due to the laws governing the state in which they live, especially when the process is recognized as a means of ending the suffering those individuals experience.

Pain and stress removal are two of the priorities of most doctors, even when the methods used to eliminate pain and stress carry severe side effects. People are known to use medications that harm their health when they know those substances will relieve their pain. Society is generally organized so that people ultimately benefit from the processes that take place within it, even when one or more of those processes are harmful in some respect. Euthanasia sits at the intersection of these competing priorities, demanding that society weigh compassion against tradition and law.

Autonomy, Morality, and the Right to Choose

When considering rights, the right to autonomy is particularly important in discussing euthanasia, as it emphasizes the fact that people have the right to make personal decisions regarding their own lives. In a society that holds morality as one of its most treasured values, it would certainly be wrong to assist someone who has no compelling reason for wanting to die. However, most individuals who have faced the question of euthanasia were actually in a critical stage, and there was practically no other way to alleviate their pain. Moreover, many have died in terrible pain because they were denied permission to be euthanized.

Everyone with a painful and incurable disease should be presented with the right to choose whether or not he or she wants to endure extreme pain until a natural death arrives. It is unreasonable to insist that individuals undergoing extreme suffering must continue to do so until their final breath, consumed by maladies that deplete their every resource. Although some may regard this topic with ease, it is very difficult for authorities to take a clear stand. Euthanasia has become a deeply complex and pressing matter, with increasingly elaborate and diverging opinions. It must be genuinely difficult to refuse a terminally ill patient who is enduring great pain the right to end his or her own life.

Even so, authorities who do refuse such requests justify their position by appealing to morality and tradition. The reality is that a person may be enduring tremendous suffering and is very likely to continue doing so for years until the projected moment of death. Society must address this reality before even more people are forced to suffer needlessly. The principle of autonomy in medical ethics holds that patients have the right to make informed decisions about their own care — a principle that becomes especially urgent in end-of-life contexts.

Historical and Religious Perspectives

Judeo-Christian tradition generally promotes the belief that life is sacred and that it is not up to humans to decide when to take a life. In contrast, recent moral thought and science have reached the conclusion that there are certain exceptions in which an individual's life may be ended. Some extremists have taken this further, arguing that it is acceptable to euthanize underprivileged individuals on account of their suffering. The Holocaust stands as a stark example of the catastrophic wrongness of euthanasia when the factors involved do not meet the ethical requirements that would legitimately permit the procedure.

Many people in contemporary society, however, accept that euthanasia can be performed out of mercy for a person who is suffering. People have gradually come to accept the idea that it is better for suffering individuals to benefit from a peaceful death rather than to struggle hopelessly through great pain. Although euthanasia movements made notable progress throughout the twentieth century, matters reached a stalemate toward the end of that century, as it became clear that changing the majority's opinion would be extremely difficult. As Derek Humphry conceded in 2001, the struggle for legalized euthanasia in America is "going to be a very long battle. This is still a religious country." While much had changed since the days of Charles Potter, much had remained the same (Dowbiggin 164).

Conclusion: Rethinking Morality and Compassion

Euthanasia is ultimately controversial in part because most people prefer to avoid the topic, given the morbidity they associate with it. Taking one's life because one is expected to endure inhumane pain for several years cannot possibly be equated with murder or suicide. Morality must be combined with logic in any honest understanding of euthanasia, and people need to be more sympathetic and less self-centered when considering the choices of individuals who view euthanasia as the most humane way out of unbearable suffering.

Bibliography

Allen, Jen, Sonia Chavez, Sara DeSimone, Debbie Howard, Keadron Johnson, Lucinda LaPierre, Darrel Montero, and Jerry Sanders. "Americans' Attitudes toward Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide, 1936–2002." Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 33.2 (2006).

Dowbiggin, Ian. A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Gailey, Elizabeth Atwood. Write to Death: News Framing of the Right to Die Conflict, from Quinlan's Coma to Kevorkian's Conviction. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.

Neuhaus, Richard John. "The Always Lively Newsletter Catholic Eye Reflects on Why It Is That Older People Who Are Strongly Pro-Life Are Tempted to Succumb to a Measure of Ambivalence When the Subject Turns to Euthanasia." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, May 2007: 65.

Prado, C. G. The Last Choice: Preemptive Suicide in Advanced Age, 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998.

Rayner, Claire. "You Say Murder, I Say Euthanasia." New Statesman, 19 June 2000: 31.