Euthanasia: Proponents and Opponents, Essay Example

Euthanasia is one of the most pressing issues worldwide that is the subject of passionate discussion over the years. By definition, euthanasia is the concept that is known in the medical field as the manner of speeding up the death process of an individual with terminal illness causing pain and suffering by either withholding treatment or taking measures to cause death. Undeniably, a lot of issues are arising from this issue as well as questions that need solid and well-founded answers. However, even with the various literature and arguments posted to provide the pros and cons of euthanasia, it is still clouded with ambiguity. Even with the progress of science and the broadening of the application of laws and precedents, the controversy involving peaceful death or euthanasia is still daunting. As a matter of fact, doctors, nurses and other health care professionals are facing ethical issues on a daily basis. They have to make a decision of whether or not they will embrace the options of euthanasia or fight for the right to life of their dying patients. Some, on the other hand, feel like they are being obligated to resolve the issue and utilize their own stand on the moral aspect of it.

The main question is whether or not euthanasia should be legalized. In some countries like Australia it is legal while it is considered illegal in Canada and in some parts of the United States of America. Proponents and opponents of the concept of euthanasia have their own valid and founded reasoning for establishing their stand on the issues.

Right to Die vs Right to Live

Every person in the world has the right to accept or reject medical treatment necessary to make life easier. It is true that every person has the right to choose of whether or not to accept treatment from an illness. Proponents of euthanasia argue that every person has the right to make choices about their lives that extends to living or dying. This choice of living or dying is often expressed in the living will of a person which is a declaration of someone of sound mind and in legal capacity that in the case where life can only be sustained through artificial life support such person should be left to die naturally and without resuscitation. This is always seen in the medical field. A person with terminal illness or an elderly who is admitted in a hospital or home care has to indicate in their medical form whether the status is “DNR or Do Not Resuscitate” or “Resuscitate”. This is but an example of the choice people make when it comes to living or dying. In reality, people are scared of dying. But there is nothing scarier than to think that one day their lives will just be supported through an artificial life support. People will often say that they would rather be dead than be in a vegetative state, eating thru a feeding tube and assisted breathing.

Oppositions, on the other hand, are arguing that although people have the right to refuse medical treatment it should not override the preservation and respect for life. It can be argued that the right to die is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is not a supported “right” and to advocate for such is a direct violation of the Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional (Arkes, 15). In the event that a person is refusing treatment, it will be hard to prove that such person is in a competent and of sound mind to decide whether a treatment helps or not. Arguably, the act of refusing medical treatment can be affected by a lot of factors and not simply because the person is choosing to express and utilize the “right to die”. Rather, the refusal to be treated medically can stem from depression, pain and suffering, financial restraints, guilt, fear of the unknown and not because the person really wants to die. In some cases, a third-party decision can be affected by their emotions and would rather see their loved ones die than see them referring (Whiting, 112). Again, it cannot be sustained that their emotions validate that of the patients’ themselves. The state of the person’s mind can be challenged when opting for euthanasia. Do they really want to just end their lives or is their decision based of losing hope and guilt that their family is hurting at the same time because of them.

The only qualification that seems justified is that euthanasia is to be afforded only to those who truly desire it. But even that is subject to confusion. Desire is a broad term to be used when deciding whether someone should be euthanized or not. It is affected not just by pressure from physicians and family members but also from guilt, isolation and despair.

Life should not be taken too lightly as it is not just about illness and death. The most important thing to remember and taken into consideration is the fact that every individual has a biological life that is the summation of life’s aspirations, activities, human relationships, decisions and projects. But should these factors be used for an absolute determination of the right to live and die when they are affected by circumstances and personal challenges?

Pain and Suffering vs. Quality of Life

What really constitutes quality of life? Proponents of euthanasia argue that pain and suffering brought about by a disease or an illness do not constitute quality of life. The argument is that people at the end of their disease process are in pain and to let them suffer and live through the pain is just treating them without dignity.  This is one of the factors that are being used by the proponents of euthanasia to push for its legalization. But the problem of this argument lies in the fact that there are other ways to take care of people in pain. Pain does not equate to death. If a person is in pain, it does not mean that the society has to kill them. As a matter of fact, people who are in pain do not want to die. The only thing they want is to have their pain managed and alleviated. Family members and physicians affect a patient’s decision-making. The reality in dealing with terminally-ill people is that some doctors and family members talk about euthanasia to the patients. At that point in time, the patients are not being given any other options. The truth of the matter is that when patients are talked about euthanasia, 9 out of 10 would come back requesting for one.

Death is not the only solution. There are palliative care and pain management. It is just a matter of what options is the society giving to the dying patients and their family. Quality of life can be given even in the dying times. It is a choice. If the family and doctors will not advocate for these patients who cannot advocate for themselves then there is no quality of life. What is left is the nature of human to control things and matters of life where there seems to be no alternatives. In addition, if euthanasia is to be afforded to people who are suffering and in pain, can this concept be extended to people who are disabled? Why not? Their quality of life is also impaired due to their disability and their pain and suffering is also apparent. The truth of the matter is that there is no dignity in dying but there is in living. The human body is designed in such a way that as it gets older it fails to perform as it used to when it is younger so there is a need for caregivers and assistance in performing activities of daily living such as going to the bathroom and eating. The process is gross and disturbing at some point. In order to live a quality life through this, support is needed. Resources and finances are necessary to take care of this situation and to provide quality of life. Death is not the solution.

Health Care Cost Containment

One of the main opposing arguments to euthanasia is the possibility of it being used as form of health care cost containment. It is revealed that the cost of euthanasia can be as low as $300. It is nothing compared to the cost of treatments that are being afforded to people with terminal illness. This is why opposition of euthanasia has taken its stand on the issue. Just imagine a country that is cost-conscious about the health care being afforded to its people. A broken health care system mixed with assisted suicide does not go hand-in-hand. It looks more like a way of depleting health care cost and puts the most vulnerable members of the society into a much greater harm than manageable pain caused by an illness. The scary reality is that as it gets legalized, it will be considered covered in most insurance providers. Is it a good thing? Consider the case of Randy Stroup. He lived in Oregon, one of the 3 states in America that legalized euthanasia. He was suffering from prostate cancer and has applied to get coverage from the state to undergo additional treatment. He was denied by the state. But in the denial letter, the State actually asked Stroup to look into another option- the assisted suicide option. In this situation, the State did not want to help Stroup to get better but they will pay for his euthanasia. Stroup wanted to live but the State made it look like there is no hope and death is the ultimate way to go.

In situations like this, the argument of right to life and dignity in dying looks like a cover up for the real agenda of the government to cut cost in the health care. A $300 fee for an assisted death is nothing compared to thousands of dollars and resources that are needed to help a cancer patient live a long life. Instead of finding and improving ways to promote quality of life through resources and more funding, the society is more focused on how kill patients and make it legal.

Proper State Regulation vs The Lack of It

Another argument being posted by the opposition of euthanasia concerns the state regulation. Are there enough safeguards and controls over the administration of euthanasia? In countries like Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium where euthanasia is legal, various standards and safeguards in performing euthanasia are laid out. A voluntary and written consent must be shown. A person requesting euthanasia must present an unambiguous written consent for the procedure. Competency at the time the request was written must be established (Bernard, 156). The person must be in the right mind, conscious and of legal capacity to make such a decision. Still, it is reported that there are 500 people in Netherlands, alone, were euthanized involuntarily. Such statistics comprised the 1.7% of the total death population in the country. 0.4% of which has not given the voluntary, explicit written consent that is required by the law. Likewise, 32% of the 208 cases of assisted death in Belgium were performed even in the absence of consent.

Mandatory reporting is likewise required by the law as part of the regulation. However, it is revealed that almost half of the euthanasia cases in Belgium are not reported. This trend is due to the fact that written consents were not mostly obtained properly and physicians are not being consulted most of the time. In Netherlands, 20% of the total cases of euthanasia are not being reported. These statistics are offered conservatively and only based on the cases that can be traced. It could be as high as 40% if all cases are traced accordingly. The regulation also states that euthanasia is to be performed only by physicians and yet, nurses’ involvement is high. An alarming statistics revealed that in 12% of the cases, nurses administered euthanasia and 45% did not even meet the explicit consent required (Gordijin and Janssens, 38). In addition, it is required that second consultation and opinion be sought. An objective assessment must be made and the patient’s case be reviewed by an independent physician is necessary to make sure that life is protected. Evidence revealed otherwise. Because such process is not applied universally, 35% of cases in Netherlands did not get second opinion and consultation in involuntary euthanasia. The trend is alarming due to the fact that in 1998, 25% of euthanasia cases in Netherlands received psychiatric consultations and none in 2010 (Smets, et.al, 188). With this statistics in mind, the impartiality of the process can be challenged. The safety of the vulnerable members of the society is likewise being put in a greater danger than just pain.

In conclusion, it cannot be denied that both the proponents and opponents to the concept of euthanasia have cogent arguments on their stand. However, since the issues of euthanasia transcends beyond the ethical dilemma, it can be said that opponents to the legalization of euthanasia has more proof and well-founded argument. This is due to the fact that the statistics revealed that there will be more harm than good that will result from its legalization. When the proponents argue that assisted suicide benefits an individual, it looks logical and acceptable. A person suffering from brain-cancer justifies euthanasia. Suffering and pain must be ended. True. However, when euthanasia is treated and looked at how it will affect the majority of the people in the society- it does not look so good after all. Even with the attempted regulation of the countries and states where it is legal, it is still open for abuse and there is no legal remedy or recourse for it. The dangers to the ill, the elderly, the family, physicians and the entire society outweigh the supposed benefits to the very few.

As a matter of fact, the United Nations declared that the Netherlands’ law governing euthanasia is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is due to the lack of protection for human life, the risk for safety and life of its people. There is a great concern that the law will fail the values of the society, the autonomy of every person and the right to life. It is believed that people only look at euthanasia on the surface and think it is the solution to the pain and suffering. The truth of the matter is that the society is not yet ready for it. There is a lack of knowledge. It might have scratched the surface but there is more to it than ending pain and dignity in dying. Regulations must be strengthened in order to close the opportunity for abuse.

Work Cited

Arkes, Hadley. “Natural Law: Its Reappearance and Why It  Continues to Matter.” Constitution: A Journal for the Foundation of the U.S Constitution. 4.1 (1992): 13-18.

Bernard, Lo. Resolving Ethical Dilemmas: A Guide to Clinicians. New York: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2000.

Gordijin, B. and Janssens, R. “The Prevention of Euthanasia Through Palliative Care: New Developments in the Netherlands.” Patient Education and Counseling Journal. 1.41 (2010): 35-46.

Smets, T. Bilsen, J., Cohen, J., Rurup, M., and Deliens, L. “Legal Euthanasia in Belgium: Characteristics of All Reported Euthanasia Cases.” Med Care. 48. (2010): 187-92.

Whiting, Raymond. A Natural Right to Die: Twenty-Three Centuries of Debate. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.