Eutanasia

Human euthanasia is an emotionally charged subject for those who argue for and those who argue against. Arguments supporting euthanasia include ending suffering, freedom of choice to decide how and when one dies, and being able to die with dignity. Arguments opposing euthanasia include that euthanasia is murder, use of palliative care to provide for a more comfortable, dignified death, and in most cases, the desire to die prematurely is rooted in depression. This article takes a critical look at both sides of the debate with the purpose of presenting a non-biased look at both sides allowing the reader to form his or her own opinion when presented with the facts and arguments of both sides.

To understand the debate for and against euthanasia, one must first understand the various forms that euthanasia can take; they include passive, active, voluntary and involuntary. Passive euthanasia is the withholding of respirators and other life-sustaining equipment, procedures, or treatment and is not typically objected to bylaw or most religions; active euthanasia is intentionally causing the death of another person through specific actions (Pregnant Pause, 2001). In the United States, an individual has the right to create an Advanced Directive that serves as the individual's voice if he or she becomes incapable of making medical and treatment based decisions or to designate a Medical Power of Attorney which is a person the individual trusts, who is aware of the individual's wishes, to make the same decisions he or she would in their stead should the individual be incapable of making those decisions for him or herself. These obviously are only viable options if they have been designated before the individual is in need of them (International Task Force, 2009). Voluntary euthanasia occurs when an individual has chosen and requested for his or her life to be ended; non-voluntary euthanasia is when it has not been requested or consented to. A fifth type of euthanasia is euthanasia by omission, which is the intentional causation of death by not providing the care necessary to sustain life; examples would include not providing the shelter, food, and water an individual needs to live (National Right to Life, n.d.

Pro-Euthanasia

Advances in medical technology today often means that people are living longer and all too often suffering for long periods of time due to illnesses, and yes, this does often mean an agonizingly slow death. Suicide and assisted suicide is often viewed as the most logical choice when faced with these circumstances. As far back as the 16th Century, people have been arguing for the terminally ill to be aided in ending life by physicians who should not be held morally or legally to blame for assisting the individual. The beginning of the 21rst Century saw many bills supporting the use of euthanasia proposed in many Western legislatures with little to no success. The fact is that everyone is going to die, the only question that remains to be answered is when, how, and under what conditions.

Supporters of euthanasia state that everyone should have the same degree of control in choosing the circumstances surrounding their death as they do in choosing the manner in which they live. (Economist.com, 1997)

The ethical conflicts that surround euthanasia are non-debatable, and include the need for legal safeguards that prevent abuse, to claim otherwise would be hypocrisy. Society accepts the need to "put animals down" when faced with old age, terminal illness, or debilitating injuries; indeed, many societies have even accepted the need euthanize violent criminals that are deemed to be too great a risk to society. These are considered by many to not only be humane, but just regardless of the degree of heartbreak the act can cause. Medical advances have changed the face of death; merely decades ago, if an individual's heart stopped, that individual died; however, now an individual can be revived repeatedly and the body kept alive by machines indefinitely. The medical culture has adapted the view to prolong life at all costs, frequently resulting in the elderly or terminally ill to be subjected to treatments that is futile and decreases the individual's quality of lifewithout noticeably lengthening it. Many view death as a medical failure, when in all actuality, death is inevitable. (Economist.com, 1997)

The argument for euthanasia often brings into question why should a person be forced to live without the ability to breathe, eat, or think for themselves. There is no guarantee that a person will not be revived only to die within a short time after unnecessary and often painful procedures that are largely unsuccessful at extending life or improving the quality of life. These procedures have been shown to deteriorate a person's personality and self worth, without which life feels meaningless. Why should someone be forced into continual pain and suffering when he or she feels that life is meaningless, humiliating, and the sense of selfhood has been destroyed? The Economist.com (2009) states "there are human values which trump even continued life" (p. 5).

Opponents to euthanasia state that the Hippocratic Oath prevents acts of euthanasia, while those who support euthanasia believe the Hippocratic Oath, oriniating in the 4th-Century B.C,. is in serious need of revision. The Hippocratic Oath states, "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel." However, Christianity exerted world-dominance at the turn of the millennia which strongly influenced the Hippocratic Oath. Detailed within the Oath, one finds that the Oath stems from a time in which Paganism was held as a predominant religion, and many spiritual practices included euthanizing individuals within society who were deemed to be of less value. The oath specifically states "medicine," which includes, "An agent, such as a drug, used to treat disease or injury" (Farflex, n.d., p.1). Dowboggin (2003) states, "Although the Hippocratic Oath prohibited doctors from giving 'a deadly drug to anybody, not even if asked for,' or from suggesting such a course of action, few ancient Greek or Roman physicians followed the oath faithfully" (p.1). The reason the Hippocratic Oath is held in such deep regard in today's society is because the ethics appear to suit today's purpose when, in reality, the oath needs to be updated to reflect modern society and medical practice. The world has indelibly changed and evolved since the Hippocratic Oath was first written, as have ethical codes of conduct (History, 2009).

Horror stories abound about euthanasia being performed with impure and unethical reasons, including the deliberate ending of life without patient consent. Although these events do suggest the need for more regulation and control of euthanasia, history has clearly demonstrated that any law or system can be abused and euthanasia violations against human rights would indicate that a slap on the hand would not suffice as an appropriate penalty for abuse. Patient and physician liberties must first be protected by strict guidelines, laws, and safeguards that are sure to be strictly followed and enforced. In a country of freedom, lawsuits are always on the horizon, thus a clear line between murder and euthanasia must be defined and strictly upheld, lest the boundaries between the two be irrevocably crossed.

Opponents to euthanasia quote that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" (United Nations, 1948), indeed, every individual has these rights; however, if an individual has the right to life, then should they not also have the right to die? The right to life holds jurisdiction over the right to death, but it should be differentiated that life is not the same as living. Lying in bed, incapable of movement, deprived of all senses, and unable to express or experience life is not living. The same can be said of a person so deeply infused with palliative medicine that one is incapable of fending for oneself or living to the ideal one personally believes to be fruitful and worthwhile. At what point does society decide that a heartbeat is no longer a viable form of living if one cannot experience or express oneself? The boundary between euthanasia and murder is often blurred; however, from an ethical standpoint, an individual cannot deny prolonging life causes undue physical, emotional, and mental pain. Euthanasia is not a tool or an excuse for murder, but a method of last resort when no other options are available. Supporters of euthanasia believe that relieving the pressure from a patient and unburdening the family from mental and emotional strain of having a fatal condition is ethical, provided the appropriate legal and medical measures are not only enacted but also enforced.

Is it right for society to deprive individuals of personal liberties by refusing to give the individual the right to die? Does everyone having the right to "life, liberty, and security of person" mean that regardless of the circumstance, an individual should have a heartbeat and when death is imminent deny that person the right to death, even when circumstances beyond human control dictate the loss of life? Farflex (2009) defines security as, "...freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear" (p.1) A debilitating illness can strike doubt, anxiety, and fear into any heart, regardless of race, religion, or creed. No one wants to have life ended by circumstances one

...