Introduction
Euthanasia, otherwise known as mercy killing or assisted suicide, has been a controversial subject for many centuries. Opponents of legalizing the practice suggest that euthanasia is a ‘slippery slope’ that would allow increasing instances of coerced suicide, family members pressuring the elderly not to postpone their inevitable demise for financial reasons. Most that oppose euthanasia do so for religious reasons. They are against people ‘playing God.’ Of course, arguments based on religious considerations are seldom credible when debating issues involving science and common sense. One common sense arguments for euthanasia is that the humane treatment afforded animals that are terminally ill or injured and are suffering should be given to humans as well. Individual freedoms of choice that exist in life also extend to the end of life. Euthanasia should be legal in all 50 states.
The Evidence is before US
Oregon
Only one state, Oregon, and three countries, Switzerland, Belgium and The Netherlands, allow assisted suicide (Hurst & Mauron, 2003). The law in Oregon was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld by a vote of six to three. The Oregon laws are shaped after those in the Netherlands and are designed to ensure second opinions have been consulted and there is an imminent presumption of death within a reasonable time frame of when the procedure is requested. In addition, the patient must make multiple requests for the procedure all spaced out over a period of weeks and must be willing to administer an overdose of drugs themselves.
Switzerland
Assisted suicide by physicians and non-physicians has been legal in Switzerland since WWII. In addition, three organizations within the country have been established to aid terminally ill patients. They provide patient counseling as well as the drugs for use in the procedure. Lethal injections, however, are not allowed. The unusual situation in Switzerland holds that assisted suicide is allowed as long as a physician is not a part of the process (Hurst & Mauron, 2003).
Belgium
Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. Each case must be reviewed by two physicians before the procedure is carried out by either ingestion or injection. In The Netherlands, euthanasia has been legal for four years but has been tolerated for two decades. The guidelines for physicians handed down from the government include; “the patient must be suffering unbearably and have no hope of improvement, must ask to die and the patient must clearly understand the condition and prognosis (and) a second doctor must agree with the decision to help the patient die” (“The Fight”, 2004).
The Arguments
Humans Behaving Humanely
Proponents of euthanasia are concerned with human suffering. Many diseases such as cancer cause a lingering and excruciatingly painful death. Watching a loved one as they wither away from the disease eating away at their organs is tough enough on family members, but to see them suffer even when drugs are administered is unbearable not to mention what the patient must endure. This emotionally and physically torturous situation is played out in every hospital, every day of the year but serves no purpose. It is unimaginable to allow anyone, for example, a sweet old grandmother who has spent her life caring for others to spend the last six months of their life enduring constant pain, unable to control bodily functions, convulsing, coughing, vomiting, etc. The psychological pain for both the family and patient is unimaginably horrific as well. (Messerli, 2007).
Cost Considerations
Proponents of euthanasia also argue that the time of health care professionals, of which there is a perpetual shortage, especially nurses, could be used in a more productive manner such as on patients who are not certain to die. Numerous studies have established that understaffed medical care facilities provide a diminished quality of care to all (“Massachusetts Patients”, 2005). Those that could benefit from quality care sacrifice their health for those that are suffering a slow, agonizing and undignified death. The cost of health care overall would be reduced as people with no hope of survival no longer drain the available resources and manpower which translates to lower insurance rates. Health care costs have skyrocketed over the past decade and as the ‘baby boom generation’ ages, this problem will increase exponentially which does not benefit anyone. (Messerli, 2007).
Opposing View
Opponents to legal euthanasia rightly claim that the practice would be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath. It also would cause a devaluation of human life. Though the vast majority of doctors are ethical beyond reproach, not all are. It is common knowledge that some doctors write prescriptions to drug addicts. ‘Diet pills’ are handed out to ‘patients’ who do not have a weight problem but are simply feeding a habit and the doctor is well aware of this. If a minority of doctors can be convinced to prescribe illicit drugs then it is not difficult to imagine a situation where a doctor can be convinced to assist in the suicide of a person who is temporarily depressed due to emotional or psychological reasons. Another consideration is one of religion. If a patient decides to depart this life expeditiously, many of his or her family members could be against this decision based on personal religious convictions. What may have been a good relationship with loved ones throughout an entirety of life would be soured at the very end (Messerli, 2007).
Conclusion
Euthanasia allows for organs such as livers, hearts and kidneys to be harvested for transplant into otherwise healthy individuals with a potential for many more years of life. While it may be emotionally morbid to think of things in such terms, in a world where medical miracles can occur everyday that permit another human being a chance at a more fulfilling life, these considerations must also be made. In the real world, it is more likely that an individual will opt first to save the young child from an oncoming bus rather than an old man. By the same token, it seems incredible that today’s society would opt to allow a child to die so that a terminal patient might be forced to live a few more agonizing months. This, in effect, is the result of not allowing people to die with dignity. Many terminally ill people choose to end their own life to evade the previously discussed detriments of a terminal illness. Suicide rates are by far the highest among the elderly population for this reason.
Works Cited
“(The) Fight for the Right to Die.” CBC News. (2004). Web.
Hurst, Samia A. & Mauron, Alex. “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Switzerland: Allowing a Role for Non-Physicians.” British Medical Journal. Vol. 326, N. 7383, pp. 271-273. (2003).
“Massachusetts Patients Say Nurse Understaffing Harms Patient Safety, Undermines Quality Care.” Massachusetts Nurses Association. (2005). Web.
Messerli, Joe. “Should an incurably-ill patient be able to commit physician-assisted suicide?” Balanced Politics. (2007). Web.