Euthanasia

Euthanasia

The term ÐŽoeuthanasiaÐŽ± originated from the Greek expression for ÐŽogood deathÐŽ±. Euthanasia, which is also known as mercy killing, is the intentional act to end the life of a patient for his or her benefit. It is an issue of great complexity because it correlates closely to the sensitive issue of life and death. The issue of euthanasia which invokes in people intense emotional reactions and strong convictions has acquired a new relevance and urgency in recent years and thus become a subject of debate among physicians, religious leaders, lawyers, and the general public. Euthanasia was legalized in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2000 and 2002 respectively. In October 27, 1997, the Death with Dignity Act was implemented in Oregon, making physician-assisted suicide permissible by law. All these events mark the success in honoring the free choice of terminally-ill patients and prove to the world that euthanasia can bring forth recognizable benefits and advantages. With appropriate safeguards, the legalization of voluntary euthanasia is going to bring a lot of benefits to dying patients and society as a whole.

First, let us discuss why there is a need to legalize euthanasia and how the legalization of euthanasia is doing to benefit the terminally ill patients and the society.

The legalization of euthanasia ensures that the free choice of a terminally-ill patient is honored and respected. When it is probable that death is inevitable for the patients, they should have control in the process of dying. In ÐŽoDeath and Dignity: A case of Individual Decision MakingÐŽ±, Timothy E. Quill cites the case of Dianne to illustrate that a terminally-ill patient should be given the full command over their remaining life as well as the right to make the life-and-death decision to preserve his or her dignity (658-63). Even Timothy kept a little reservation in DianeЎЇs refusal any treatment at the beginning because there was still 25 percent of long-term survival for Diane if she accepted treatment ( However, it is the patient but not any other person who is going to endure all the agony and side effects inflicted by the disease and the treatment. The patient therefore has the absolute right in choosing whether or not to go through all the great anguish to fight for a very small possibility of survival or a prolonged period of misery. Opponents of euthanasia suggest that the pain and agony can be effectively reduced with decent palliative care. Thus, according to them, unbearable pain can never be a justification for euthanasia. Nonetheless, Quill says that ÐŽoAlthough I know we have measures to help control pain and lessening suffering, to think that people do not suffer in the process of dying is an illusionÐŽ± (662). The use of palliation can somewhat help alleviate the physical pain and other symptoms, complete relief of suffering is not always possible. Mental agonies like loss of body autonomy and independence can be even more detrimental than the corporal suffering. The drastic change from a healthy independent person to a dependent person who may need help in even the most trivial matters of daily life like going to restroom can really be an immense psychic shock for many people. Instead of leading a life overflowed with physical and metal suffering caused by the disease and the side effects of futile treatment, the patients should be given the freedom to choose to die in peace and dignity.

Legalizing euthanasia can improve palliative measures and hospice care provided to the terminally-ill patients. In ÐŽoAssisted Suicide: The PhilosophersЎЇ BriefÐŽ±, Ronald Dworkin quotes the words of The Coalition of Hospice Professionals that ÐŽoRemoving legal bans on suicide assistance will enhance the opportunity for advanced hospice care for all patients because regulation of physician-assisted suicide would mandate the all palliative measures be exhausted as a condition precedent to assisted suicideÐŽ± Legislation of euthanasia requires that patient has been offered the best palliative care available before they make their choice. In this case, they will have a better knowledge of the possible pain management and hospice care available to them. This prevents the doctors from doing whatever they want to relieve the patientsЎЇ pain. Inhumane terminal sedation in which the patients are induced into pharmacological coma and then starved and dehydrated to heath is a common practice used by doctors in poorly funded hospitals as a relief for patients suffering from uncontrollable pain. (Dworkin 666). Such inhumane practice will not likely be accepted by patients when they know that there are better alternatives for them. Better funding for hospital to provide state-of-the-art palliative measures and improved training for doctors in pain management are also probable results of legalizing euthanasia. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in May 2001, 30 percent of the 2,641 doctors who responded to the survey reported that they had increased referrals to hospice care, and 76 percent reported that they put in more efforts to enhance their knowledge of the use of pain control medications for the terminally ill patients after the Death with Dignity Act was implemented in Oregon.

It is a squander of the familyЎЇs money as well as the societyЎЇs resources to prolong the lives of the terminally ill patients who have no will to live on when there is not even enough funds for medical care. The US government does not enforce any national health care program in which every citizen is insured for medical care. A considerable portion of the citizens have to pay for their own health care. In America, the health care for a terminally ill patient can be so expensive as to use up the savings of the whole family which can be used in many more constructive ways. In ÐŽoWho Lives? Who Dies? Who Decides?ÐŽ± Ellen Goodman raises the question that ÐŽoHow many sacrifices should the healthy and vital make for the terminally or permanently ill and disabled?ÐŽ± (648). In the case of terminally ill patients, the answer is very clear if patient themselves also request for euthanasia. As there is no hope of subsequent improvement in health or relief in suffering, euthanasia should be carried out in response to the patientЎЇs request so that the precious resources can be allocated to save other patients when the health care budget is so tight. This does not mean that euthanasia should be used as cost containment. However, when the terminally ill patients themselves wish for death, why do we not allocate the money and resources for those salvageable patients who really need better treatment and medical care for survival?

One more argument may be added

Despite the many

...