Euthanasia is an area that has generated a lot of controversy in the world of medicine, with both sides of the divide presenting some very valid points, in the course of the argument. Euthanasia refers to the act of ending the life of an individual in a manner that is painless. It is usually illegal in most countries with the exception of certain forms, which are permitted in countries such as Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the U.S states of Washington and Oregon.
Those advocating for euthanasia usually argue that it provides a means through which an individual’s pain can be relieved, especially when nothing else can be done to save the patient’s life or improve the quality of their life. They also argue that such measures usually free up medical funds which can then be used by others serving to save their lives, in addition to respecting the patient’s freedom of choice.
On the other hand, those against it normally argue that it serves to devalue human life, and can be used for healthcare cost containment. They also feel that the involvement of physicians and healthcare professionals in deciding the fate of a patient is not justified, and they should thus not be involved in the direct causation of death, as it is not only wrong, but goes against the Hippocratic oath (Herbert, 1997).
It (Euthanasia) is usually carried out in a number of forms, although for the purposes of this paper, the focus is on physician assisted suicide, which usually refers to the act of essentially assisting the patient commit suicide, this form of euthanasia therefore usually ensures that the patient plays an active role in their death.
This issue as mentioned earlier has been a long standing source of controversy, with the first known law against euthanasia being passed in New York. Jacob M., a historian with Brown University, in his article Bulletin of History of Medicine documents the extensive debate over the legislation of physician assisted suicide in both Ohio and Iowa as early as 1906, with renowned figures such as Jack London and Clarence Darrow advocating for euthanasia to be legalized.
It could be argued that those advocating for physician assisted suicide did have a point, as in the era between the 1930s and 1950s, the U.S courts were forced to deal with a number of court cases which involved people requesting the physicians’ assistance in dying, or even the physicians themselves participating in mercy killings. In 1937 Switzerland declared physician assisted euthanasia as legal.
The first step therefore based on these facts, towards approving the use of physician assisted suicide would have to be the repealing of any such laws, the passage of legislations that will allow an individual under certain specific circumstances to be able to request that someone assist them take their own life.
Alternatively, we can also take the approach taken by Belgium in which physician assisted suicide is not legal, but simply unpunishable as long as the person who assisted in the suicide (who did not have to be a physician) could prove that he/she assisted in the act without harboring any sort of selfish motives, the act of physician euthanasia was therefore effectively simply legalize through de facto legalization with no written law in place (Gianelli, 1997, p 34).
In Oregon, the “Death with Dignity Act” serves to legalize suicide as a treatment measure in the care of the sick, and some aspects of this act are definitely worth borrowing, such as for instance parts of the act which stipulate that physician assisted suicide not be considered as suicide, thus meaning that the patient’s rights to insurance are not tempered with. This would be just one way in which incorporating the various aspects of the laws permitting euthanasia helps in creating an environment that limits the rates of abuse that at times comes with the use of these practices, effectively dispelling people’s mistrust in such procedures. The Washington “Death with Dignity Act” is not so different from the one in Oregon, and it is clear if one explores these laws that theme and approach is in most cases the same (Emanuel, et al., 1998).
These acts will also establish that it is still within the patient’s rights to withdraw the request for assisted suicide at any time they deem fit, and also make it paramount that whenever a patient makes such requests, be it in writing or orally, the family members will have to be notified (Gianelli, 1997, p 16).
Through the establishment of such acts, I feel it will be safe to say that a majority of the issues that make the debate whether or not to legalize euthanasia will have been taken care of. Physician assisted euthanasia surely cannot be that bad, as for every physician with integrity, the issue of taking a life needlessly does not arise, and therefore their judgment should be central to how assisted suicide is carried out, as they are best placed to know what is best for their patients. One is tempted to argue almost along the same lines as the reasons for legalizing abortion, as keeping the practice illegal doesn’t stop it from happening, it simply means that it is carried out unsafely.
Therefore, just as those against euthanasia claim that legalizing it would make people target the weak, not legalizing it would lead to a situation where the doctors and physicians carrying out the practice are not supervised, thus putting the patient’s at risk. Legalizing it, especially the practice of physician assisted euthanasia ensures that the practice is carried out within an environment with structure and under a lot of supervision, safeguarding the patient’s welfare, as everything is done under scrutiny, and in the right way.
All in all, it is safe to say that widespread euthanasia of some form does take place in healthcare today, and approving the use of physician assisted euthanasia, will provide the patients with an option to choose from, thus serving to help them end their suffering and that of their families. I therefore strongly believe that if the use of physician assisted euthanasia was instituted, it would definitely better the care offered at our health care institutions.
References
E. J. Emanuel E. J. et al., 1998. The Practice of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States: Adherence to Proposed Safeguards and Effects on Physicians, 280 JAMA 507, 507.
Gianelli M., 1997. Dutch Euthanasia Expert Critical of Oregon Approach, AM. MED. NEWS.
Herbert H. “Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 336, no. 19 (1997).