Introduction
Many consider the preservation of life to be the higher purpose of humanity’s existence. Thousands of doctors graduating each year take an oath to use their considerable skills to assist those in pain and prolong their existence by all means possible. However, the question of survival becomes more complicated when the patient in question is experiencing unimaginable pain or feels like the remaining time is not worth experiencing. Some posit that providing such people with a safe and legal way to end their suffering is a humane, rational thing to do. Others oppose legalizing the practice on the grounds due to serious legal and medical obstacles. Nevertheless, euthanasia is a necessary addition to the standard end-of-life care practice because it will give patients the power to make conscious decisions about their fate.
Main body
To begin with, one must take into account the opinions of people who are in the unfortunate position of considering whether to end their own lives. Euthanasia is a simple choice to make, so relying on the perspective of those who never had to ponder this question seems shortsighted. Interested in researching the feelings of the terminally ill, Chapple, Ziebland, Mcpherson, and Herxheimer (2006) conducted a qualitative study on the subject. According to their findings, patients cited such reasons as pain, indignity, cognitive impairment, and the loss of control among the reasons to opt for assisted suicide (Chapple et al., 2006). For them, the opportunity to die safely in the time of their choosing surrounded by friends and family was preferable to suffering for an indeterminate period. Therefore, terminally ill patients, the people for whom the question of assisted suicide is of utmost importance, agree that euthanasia should be a legal practice.
Naturally, people nearing the end of their existence are not monoliths and exhibit a variety of opinions on the subject of assisted suicide. Some cite religious views for opposing the practice. For instance, a survey conducted by Sharp (2019) demonstrates that those who believe in life after death are considerably less likely to have positive opinions about euthanasia. Nevertheless, these findings only mean that religious persons themselves should not be subjected to euthanasia, not that it should not be an option available to the general populace. Medical professionals should take spiritual beliefs into account when holding consultations with patients and their families. However, the theological concerns of some individuals are not enough for instituting a blanket ban on the practice.
Moreover, many medical professionals, another group whose opinions are of high relevance, agree that euthanasia is sometimes the only option available when treating a terminally ill person. At times, it is no longer possible for the physician to help in any other way but heavily medicating the patient to alleviate pain. The person is hardly conscious or aware of their surroundings. They do not feel that they can fully control their own body and the direction of their life. Doctors should not have to inflict even more suffering upon the people entrusted in their care. Legalizing euthanasia would allow patients and medical professionals to work together to develop an end-of-life care plan, regardless of whether that means prolonging life or organizing an assisted suicide. As a result, physicians will be confident that they are acting in their charges’ best interests.
Some thinkers cite the Hippocratic Oath as the reason why healthcare professionals should not be assisting during suicides. According to them, this foundational principle of medicine clearly states that physicians should not harm their patients. However, the pledge created over 2,000 years ago does not reflect the intricacies of modern end-of-life care. Hippocrates’ contemporaries were not capable of prolonging life, mostly because they lacked relevant knowledge and tools. Moreover, their sense of morality does not reflect many of the current views. Their opinions on women’s rights, slavery, and many other issues are no longer mainstream, and neither should be their view of physicians’ responsibilities. Lastly, there is no longer a single version of the Hippocratic Oath. In fact, many countries and even medical schools within one nation use their own versions that reflect their values, so modern graduating doctors can adjust the wording to express their perspective on euthanasia.
Of course, the biggest obstacle to legalizing the practice is whether it fits within the country’s existing laws. After all, most nations prohibit killings and punish those who commit such heinous acts. However, assisted suicide is not comparable to murder as the practice is the realm of professionals working with the full consent of the people willing to end their lives. Furthermore, one could argue that euthanasia is already legal by implication, according to several nations’ laws. For instance, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the country’s citizens the Right To Live with Personal Liberty and Human Dignity (Vyas, 2017). Additionally, the fundamental human rights, as listed by the United Nations, advocate for an existence free of torture where everyone may express their beliefs and opinions. Prolonging the life of a patient who is suffering against their will contradicts these rights, suggesting that everyone should be allowed to commit suicide if they desire to do so consciously (Vyas, 2017). As demonstrated, in some cases, human rights and fundamental laws advocate for clear a legal framework for assisted suicide.
Additionally, laws should serve the people; if the population of a country decides that they want to have a right to euthanasia, the government should not be able to deny them. For example, Oregon passed a law allowing assisted suicide through popular vote. It demonstrates that the citizens agree on the subject and want to make informed choices about their end-of-life care. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the article by Khaleeli and Cocozza (2017) recounts the problematic experiences of the people in the UK where euthanasia is not yet legal. In this case, the laws of the country are actively preventing its citizens from making decisions and perpetuate their suffering. Thus, the legalities surrounding end-of-life care and assisted suicide should reflect the desires of the population.
Despite its apparent benefits, legalizing euthanasia is a complicated process that requires considerable care in implementation. For instance, the opponents of the practice believe that it can be weaponized to harm vulnerable groups. The history of healthcare is rife with examples of medical professionals misusing medical procedures. Just as many indigenous and disabled women underwent sterilization against their will, people of color and other minorities can suffer from imposed assisted suicide. However, this argument underlines only that euthanasia legislation should be implemented prudently with all possible fail-safes. After all, sterilization is a necessary procedure that many people require. Similarly, assisted suicide should be made available with the power to choose whether it is the right option placed in the hands of the patient. The fear that euthanasia laws could harm vulnerable populations is valid but only emphasizes that the relevant legal framework should benefit those suffering from a disease.
Another popular concern regarding the issue is economic in nature. Opponents argue that financial constraints might force patients to end their lives despite them not being willing to. Some countries approach the state of egalitarian utopia or have government-sponsored universal healthcare, so it is hardly a concern there. However, in other nations, such as the United States of America, a prolonged illness can mean bankruptcy or life-long debt for the patient and their family. In this case, money can indeed act as an incentive for a person to end their life rather than ruin their loved ones’ future and financial security. Despite how awful such a decision may seem, it would still be the patient’s right to make it. The possibility of such a situation is a condemnation of the current American healthcare system rather than the right to assisted suicide.
Conclusion
Euthanasia should be a fundamental right because it gives patients the power to make conscious decisions about their fate. Many terminally ill people want to end their lives with dignity, and the government should not deny them this option. Moreover, medical professionals must always strive to provide the best care possible even if it means conducting assisted suicide procedures. It is essential to construct the relevant legislation with care and attention to detail to prevent abuses, but laws should ultimately reflect the desires of the people.
References
Chapple, A., Ziebland, S., Mcpherson, A., & Herxheimer, A. (2006). What people close to death say about euthanasia and assisted suicide: A qualitative study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(12), 706-710.
Khaleeli, H., & Cocozza, P. (2014). Assisted dying bill: ‘I want to control how and when I die.’ The Guardian. Web.
Sharp, S. (2017). Belief in life after death and attitudes toward voluntary euthanasia. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 79(1), 72-89.
Vyas, D. (2017). Painful life or peaceful death- An look out. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(1), 81–88.