Legalization of Euthanasia
“All cases of death resulting directly or
indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he know
will produce this result” (Durkehim, n.d.). Generally, euthanasia might sounds
evil and immoral due to the intentional death that it causes. However,
different perspectives have proven that euthanasia is considerable to be a better
way in certain cases. It can be seen from the number of 54% of medical
practitioners that supports the legalization of euthanasia, and only 36% oppose
it (Glasgow University Physician Assisted Suicide Report, 1996). While from the
public’s perspective, 82% of the society supports the voluntary euthanasia to
be legalized according to British Social Attitudes Report (1996). Other than a
law procedure, the idea behind the legalization of euthanasia can be understood
through simple and common point of view. Ida was a 34 single lady, who was
diagnosed to throat cancer. By the time the disease was discovered, it was too
late to make a healing treatment and it makes her depends on the medical help
system to breathe. With the medical attached on her body, the doctor estimated
that her lifespan will be 2 years. In the end of the day, Ida decided to
voluntary do euthanasia, giving up the painful and expensive 2 years life for
peaceful death. Due to the terminally sick patients themselves and their
family, euthanasia should be legalized.
The
terminally sick patients themselves can be one of the reasons why euthanasia
should be legalized considering their dignity as a human and his or her human rights.
To die with dignity will be the border appeal
to bring the humanity to support legalization of euthanasia. When it comes to a
human’s life that is talked about, dignity is usually seen as the divine line
to protect the value of life. Loss of autonomy and dependency from medical
treatment or illness leads the patients to prefer die with dignity. According
to a survey done about the underlying reason of people who do euthanasia, 84%
was because of the fear of losing their autonomy. “The original primary purpose
of the concept of dignity was to ensure respect for life.” And therefore, “The concept of dignity must be used to maintain respect for
the life of each person, and for human life and for the essence of our
humanness, in general” (Somerville, 2009). In the end of the day,
euthanasia enables people to decide when, where, and how they will end their
life and hence, it allows them to choose a proper and respectful way to die for
the sake of their life. ”In general dignity as the actualisation of capacity
argues that euthanasia is justified on an account of dignity and dignity as the
ability to have the capacity against the permissibility of euthanasia”
(Bornebroek, 2011).
The
consideration about human’s right that underlying a decision for euthanasia
also support the legalization of the law to protect its application. The
Amnesty International (2012) defines human rights as basic rights and freedoms
that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or
ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status. The humans’ right to
life does have wider implication that leads to freedom for anyone to decide
what they want to do with their life. It explains how dying, as the part of life
can also be decided or requested by the person himself. And therefore, the
legalization of law about euthanasia is needed to protect both the patient and
the doctors in respecting human rights. “Every human being has the inherent
right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life.” (International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 1966). In addition, in the conclusion of his paper, Dr Brian
Pollard (1998) states that euthanasia cannot be considered without reference to
human rights, but all relevant rights should be included.
Other than the patient himself, the influence
by family strengthen the making of decision to do euthanasia, and hence should
be another consideration of how euthanasia should be legalized. Even in an
active euthanasia, the patient might have other deliberations which are less
egoistic such as family. This perspective comes from the mental and economical
sufferings of the family.
It is humane instinct that people have empathy
when they see their loved one suffering.
Moreover, it is possible that the feelings excessively and mentally hurt
them rather than the patients themselves.
According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(n.d.), in most cases, drugs and medical helps that was employed to the
patients are given nearly as often for the comfort of the patient’s family as
they were given to reduce the suffering of the patient themselves. The other
fear comes from the grief that the family suffer after the death. However,
knowing that the family has relieved the suffering of the patient through
euthanasia will ease them to cope from the grief. “The bereaved family and
friends of cancer patients who died by euthanasia coped better with respect to
grief symptoms and post-traumatic stress reactions than the bereaved of
comparable cancer patients who died a natural death.” (Swarte, 2003).
The other issue that comes from family is the
fear of financially being a burden to the family. As the medical technology has
improved over the time, the cost of medical treatment has also increased as
well as the household expenditure on health. According to Singapore Department
of Statistics (n.d.), it is shown that from the year of 1997/98 to 2007/08, the
household expenditure on health has increased from 3.5& to 5.3%. The
possible question would be: “Why should people pay so much money for only a
temporary relieve when the final result is still the same??”. Based on the estimated numbers made by The
Life Resources Charitable Trust (2011), the cost of drugs for assisted suicide
$35.00 while the cost of proper health care $35,000-40,000. Lisa was a 60 years
old mother of 3 children. She was diagnosed to have lungs cancer in critical
level. In the same time, her second daughter was about to get married, and her
last son was about to enter college. Under that family condition, she gathered the
entire family member and announced her decision to do euthanasia with
consideration that she will be able to allocate the cost of the palliative care
to her family.
In conclusion, the legalization of euthanasia
for terminally ill patient should be done due to several reasons related to the
patients themselves and the suffering of the patients’ family. From the
patients’ perspective, euthanasia should be legalized considering human dignity
and human rights. While from the family factor, mental suffering and financial
considerations support euthanasia. The elaboration above clarifies that
euthanasia cannot be seen as a crime but as a reasonable and considerable way
out for certain cases. It also explains why 51.3% of people in Oregon favour
the legalization of euthanasia. “By relieving the individual of the pain of
her/his condition, euthanasia is not inflicting harm but is an act of
non-maleficence towards the human being.
It is an act of love.” (filippo, 1994).
Reference Page
·
BBC
- Ethics - Euthanasia: Pro-euthanasia arguments. (2013). BBC - Homepage. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml
·
Bornebroek,
B. (2011). The role of human dignity in justifying euthanasia. Master thesis Applied Ethics. Retrieved from
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2011-0908-201508/MasterthesisBenBornebroek.pdf.
·
British
Social Attitudes Survey - Euthanasia statistics. (n.d.). EUTHANASIA - FAST ACCESS - LIVING WILLS - EXIT. Retrieved from
http://www.euthanasia.cc/97-1dvd.html
·
Death,
suffering, and euthanasia. (2010, June). National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2902937/#b22-0560528
·
E Durkheim, Suicide
– A study in Sociology, The Free Press, New York, 1951, p.44
·
Essex,
K. H. (2000). EUTHANASIA. Retrieved from http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11j.pdf.
·
Goel
, V. (2008). Euthanasia – A dignified end of life! International NGO Journal, 3(12). Retrieved from
http://www.academicjournals.org/ingoj/pdf/pdf2008/December/Goel.pdf.
·
Human
Rights Basics | Amnesty International USA. (2013). Amnesty International USA | Protect Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics
·
LifeIssues.net:
Clear thinking about crucial issues. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.lifeissues.net/
·
Singapore
Department of Statistics (n.d.). Welcome to Statistics Singapore. Retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hes.pdf
·
stats.
(n.d.). EUTHANASIA - FAST ACCESS - LIVING WILLS - EXIT. Retrieved from
http://www.euthanasia.cc/stats.htm
·
Swarte,
N. B. (2003). Effects of euthanasia on the bereaved family and friends: a cross
sectional study | BMJ. Home |
BMJ. Retrieved from
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7408/189
·
The
Life Resources Charitable Trust (2011). Impact of Euthanasia on the Family |
The Life Resources Charitable Trust. a new zealand resource for life related issues. Retrieved from
http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiakeyissues/impact-on-family/
No comments:
Post a Comment