Introduction
The ethical conundrum surrounding euthanasia has been a topic of heated debate for many years now. Some advocate for its legalization on grounds of individual autonomy, and they suggest that people with terminal illnesses should have the right to decide when and how to end their suffering. There are also those who oppose euthanasia due to concerns about potential misuse, in cases where the patient is unable to provide informed consent, such as in the case of mental illness. Euthanasia should not be legal because its legal reach quickly expands through a slippery slope to cover terminally not ill patients with an inability to provide consent, such as the mentally ill.
Personal Stance and Academic Engagement
As a student in liberal arts, I have a unique perspective on complex social and ethical issues, including euthanasia. This issue of euthanasia has been a consistent part of my educational journey since my high school days, featuring prominently in debates and assignments. More specifically, on this topic, I break with liberal orthodoxy. I consider myself highly liberal on many political, controversial, and social rights issues, but for euthanasia, I am strongly opposed to it.
Therefore, my stance against euthanasia, contrary to the general liberal viewpoint, adds an extra layer of depth to my understanding of the subject. This divergence in opinion with my peers, most of whom are pro-euthanasia, has compelled me to delve deeper into this issue. Engaging in spirited debates with them has honed my critical thinking skills and solidified my stance. The constant challenge of arguing against a popular viewpoint has resulted in an extensive and intensive study of the matter. My academic and personal engagement with the subject equips me with the authority to speak on the issue of euthanasia.
Evidence and Emotional Implications
An examination of euthanasia practices in progressive nations such as the Netherlands reveals startling facts. According to Justo Aznar’s (2021) research in Medicina e Morale, “41% had depression, 15% anxiety, and 52% had a previous history of attempted suicide” among the 66 patients who requested euthanasia in the Netherlands (p. 113). A significant portion of all euthanasia deaths was conducted without explicit consent from mentally ill people, and almost half of the patients who underwent euthanasia had clear mental health disorders.
Psychiatrists themselves are highly hesitant to accept euthanasia as a solution to the problem (Aznar, 2021). Such facts challenge the notion that euthanasia is primarily used for patients with unbearable physical suffering. The data implores society to consider the potential for misuse and the slippery slope it could create. Therefore, logic dictates that the legalization of euthanasia will lead to severe unintended consequences without stringent controls and a comprehensive understanding.
Emotions take center stage when one considers the case of Aurelia Brouwers. According to Linda Pressly’s report for BBC News, “Aurelia Brouwers was not terminally ill – she was allowed to end her life on account of her psychiatric illness” (Pressly, 2018, para. 1). The article provokes deep emotions of anger, sadness, and outrage. There was state-sanctioned euthanasia, even though Brouwers was a young woman who had mental health issues but did not have a terminal illness. The outcome of legalizing the practice is a quick slippery slope.
As soon as it is legalized and normalized, practically anyone with some mental health problem can be given suicide options. Legalizing euthanasia in the US will be a disaster, considering the current mental health crisis. It can insidiously slip towards allowing everyone to get it, which is why there is no point in the United States allowing euthanasia. The given concerns showcase the potential emotional toll that the practice of euthanasia will exact on society; thus, it supports the position against its legalization.
Counterarguments and Ethical Considerations
Looking at the other side of the argument, one can consider the perspectives of those advocating for euthanasia. In an article by Nicholas Goldberg (2022), it is stated that patients “deserve the right to make decisions about their own lives and deaths” (par. 2). The argument brings to light the proponents’ view of individual autonomy by emphasizing that patients should have control over their life’s trajectory, even if it means ending it prematurely. In addition, Goldberg (2022) expresses the belief that although navigating the balance between patient protection and assistance in dying is challenging, it is not impossible to achieve. The argument here assumes that it is possible to have safeguards in place to prevent the misuse of euthanasia while still allowing individuals the right to end their lives when they deem fit.
Goldberg (2022) also proposes that any protective measures ensuring that individuals are not pressured into euthanasia should be embraced. The perspective suggests that the risks associated with euthanasia can be diminished with appropriate safeguards. Thus, advocates of euthanasia firmly believe in its potential for compassionate use outside the terminally ill.
When considering the argument made by euthanasia advocates, one might be tempted to concede that terminally ill patients have a ‘right’ to decide their fate. However, society treads on a slippery slope once non-terminally ill patients are allowed access to euthanasia. As a result, the interpretation of ‘deserving’ becomes overly permissive. The risk lies in these terms becoming malleable enough to be exploited.
Unethical individuals, such as practitioners, institutions, and even family members, can do the latter. Ideally, euthanasia should be made legal for the terminally ill; however, the reality of policy and societal pressures will lead to overexpansion of its legal parameters. Contrary to Goldberg’s (2022) claim, finding a balance between helping patients die and protecting them is not achievable.
Medicine’s fundamental principle is to do no harm – a direct contradiction to assisting suicide. Although patients have autonomy, they cannot compel medical practitioners to act against other fundamental principles of “do no harm.” The only fail-safe protection against potential misuse and the dangers of the slippery slope is to not legalize euthanasia at all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, euthanasia should not be made lawful since its scope quickly extends. The slippery slope is real, and it will lead to including patients with no terminal illness; therefore, the mentally ill will be the first victims of euthanasia. People should share my position on the given problem because I present only how euthanasia manifests itself in practice and the real world.
I am aware of idealistic hypotheticals, but the policies and laws do not function perfectly. My view would help people to understand euthanasia and any other controversial issue with better pragmatism rather than idealism. It is vital for people, as voters and citizens, to consider what we should do and how we should do it. Legalizing euthanasia shows that the ‘how’ part is missing since it creates more problems than solutions.
References
Aznar, J. (2021). The slippery slope of euthanasia. Medicina e Morale, 1, 111-120. Web.
Goldberg, N. (2022). Op-Ed: Column: Should our aid-in-dying laws be expanded, or are we moving too far too fast? Los Angeles Times. Web.
Pressly, L. (2018). The troubled 29-year-old helped to die by Dutch doctors? BBC News. Web.