Euthanasia and Suicide Rights: A Controversial Social Issue

Introduction: Suicide as a Social Taboo

Suicide has been a taboo in most Western human societies as well as in many others. However, various ancient societies and several contemporary societies still accept ritual suicide, particularly in connection with major failures or sources of shame. In Western society, end-of-life by choice, or euthanasia, has emerged as a controversial social and moral issue in the last several decades, mainly in connection with medical ethics. That is largely a function of the fact that advances in medical science, food production, treatment of acute illness, and management of chronic illness have all greatly increased human health and also extended life expectancy. In the United States, life expectancy almost doubled during the 20th century (Levine, 2008).

One ironic result of greater human health and longevity is that people also frequently outlive their health. Instead of dying from natural causes in early old age, many people now live well into their eighties and even nineties. A comparatively small proportion of them remain physically active, healthy, and in full command of their intellectual faculties by the time they succumb to old age. Many more elderly people live so long that they extend the worst part of their lives, doing little else but enduring one medical procedure after another to maintain life (Levine, 2008).

Similarly, the dramatic increase in life expectancy has also contributed to a corresponding increase in the incidence of age-related dementia — Alzheimer's disease in particular. Many elderly individuals have become familiar enough with Alzheimer's that they dread living with that disease far more than they fear the natural end of their lives. As a result, society must now face ethical decisions about allowing people to end their lives by their own choice rather than waiting for nature to run its course. Naturally, this provokes intense debate because it threatens long-held beliefs, values, and taboos in Western society.

The Central Dispute in Contemporary Society

The central dispute at issue is whether individuals should be allowed to decide to end their lives by their own choice. Currently, suicide in any form — including euthanasia in a medical setting — is strictly prohibited by U.S. criminal law (Humphry, 2010). On one hand, those in favor of euthanasia argue that mentally competent individuals should not have to justify their private choices to others. That position favors respecting the autonomy and privacy of individuals, especially in the medical setting, where patient autonomy is a fundamental tenet of medical ethics (Levine, 2008; Vaughn, 2009). On the other hand, those opposed to euthanasia argue that human life is precious and that only God has the right to give and take life. Generally, the major source of objection to suicide and euthanasia is rooted in Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and traditions that have always strictly prohibited suicide (Humphry, 2010).

This opposition also raises important ethical issues — particularly in the U.S. — by virtue of the fact that religious freedom is a central pillar of American society and of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Humphry, 2010; Levine, 2008). Meanwhile, there are also secular objections on a public welfare and policy level that pertain more to where the lines should be drawn if old age and certain types of illness are accepted as legitimate criteria justifying suicide or euthanasia.

Arguments Against Euthanasia

The principal source of objection to suicide rights comes from various religious traditions. Christians across denominations consider suicide a mortal sin that condemns the soul to Hell (Humphry, 2010). Jews also strictly prohibit suicide; in fact, the Jewish religion considers harming the body in any way to be a sin. This belief is the origin of the orthodox tradition of wearing beards: the idea is to avoid ever taking a sharp blade to the face or neck under any circumstances (Margolis & Marx, 1970).

There are also secular public policy arguments against suicide rights. One concern is that suicide inevitably destroys many lives beyond that of the individual — it is devastating to families. Another concern is that suicidal feelings can be transient and attributable to temporary circumstances or states of mind. If suicide were sanctioned as a right, many people might exercise that right in error who might not have otherwise chosen to do so. The role of psychological illness such as depression is also a significant factor, as is concern about the proverbial "slippery slope" — the question of where to draw various lines once the principle is established. Finally, the prospect of health care proxies for the elderly opens a host of ethical issues relating to ulterior motives such as inheritance (Humphry, 2010; Levine, 2008; Vaughn, 2009).