Introduction
Debates on euthanasia have become numerous globally, with many nations opposing the legalization of the practice. The arguments cut across dynamic sectors, including religion, human rights, socio-cultural considerations, civilization, economics, science, and medicine. The individuals who oppose the legalization of euthanasia base their argument on morality, the dignity of human life, and religious perspectives of creation and God’s supremacy.
On the other hand, supporters attempt to present their arguments considering human suffering, a patient’s freedom to choose life and death, and the burden of caring for the critically ill on dependents. Both sides present arguable theories, which require in-depth analysis to consider the legalization of euthanasia. Thus, there is a need for philosophical, social, and legal research to determine whether euthanasia should be legalized, considering the philosophical views of both sides.
This essay presents various arguments that support and oppose the legalization of euthanasia to make a stand that euthanasia should not be legalized based on religious, social, human dignity, medical, and moral philosophies regarding the practice.
The Legalization of Euthanasia: Arguments For and Against
Numerous societal communities and nations support euthanasia as a method of dying due to moral, social, and medical considerations. Individuals supporting euthanasia claim that everyone has a right to decision-making, and society has the moral obligation to acknowledge the decision. The autonomy of life suggests that individuals have the right to determine how to live and die, which should be respected.
According to Dierickx et al., the argument is based on a person’s right to privacy and self-determination. Patients with terminal illnesses and irreversible mental disorders can decide their death to avoid unnecessary pain. Conversely, supporters argue that social norms and values against intentionally killing another person do not consider the person’s suffering and pain, which may lead to desperation to die.
Medically, an individual has the autonomy to refuse or choose the treatment method recognized by the law. For instance, a patient can refuse an organ transplant or blood transfusion due to religious and socio-cultural reasons that may lead to passive euthanasia. Thus, prohibiting the practice is against human rights and the freedom of free will, which is immoral and cruel.
At the same time, supporters argue that euthanasia allows people to preserve their dignity in life. Every individual poses a certain level of dignity, which may diminish pain, suffering, and deteriorating health. The argument considers patients in vegetative states and chronic illnesses that expose them to much pain. Therefore, they have a right to end their existence if they maintain their position and dignity in society. In such instances, medical practitioners and society have a moral obligation to accept their wish to die rather than make them suffer and end with undignified deaths. Hence, euthanasia should be legalized to protect the human right of autonomy, privacy, and preservation of human dignity.
Lastly, euthanasia helps ease the societal burden of caring for the chronically ill. Taking care of the sick can cause social, mental, and financial strains on caregivers and dependents. Patients with chronic illnesses require constant care and medication, which may be costly. Consequently, caring for the sick is time-consuming, posing challenges in other activities such as socializing and economic activities.
Arguably, physicians spend much time focusing on patients with incurable and terminal illnesses that could be spent on other critically ill patients hoping for survival. Consenting to euthanasia can ease the physician’s workload, leading to saving more lives than utilizing resources on patients in a vegetative state and those not responding to medication. Therefore, legalizing euthanasia can help ease caregivers’ burden and physicians’ workload, leading to a healthy and happy society.
Despite the supporters’ philosophies, opponents of euthanasia have equally substantive arguments on why the practice should not be legalized. Opponents argue that ending a patient’s life is unethical and against the common law and the medical profession. According to Kumar et al., healthcare providers are under an ethical oath to save lives. Hence, euthanasia is against the moral code since it involves hurting or intentionally taking human life.
Instead of killing, opponents recommend that medical professionals use rapidly evolving scientific cures and patient caregiving practices to prevent prolonged suffering. Palliative care is the most appropriate approach to caregiving, which provides patients the support and relief needed to prolong life without pain and suffering, regardless of the medical condition. Thus, fewer people will have thoughts of euthanasia if their medical experience is comfortable and less painful, which may give them a chance to recover.
All life is sacred, and an individual’s intentional killing devalues the dignity of life and humanity. The life of human beings is valuable and should be protected by prohibiting laws that allow the intentional taking of another person’s life.
According to religious philosophy, God is the giver and taker of life. Hence, the matter of life cannot be taken lightly by human beings as the decision maker. The Supreme Being is the only judge of good and bad that relates to determining a patient’s health as terminal or beyond cure, which may lead to euthanasia. The principles of life’s inviolability are an important aspect of common law globally. Human life has a high value, which should be protected to maintain the dignity of life.
Although supporters of the practice argue for the dignity of human life, being alive in it shows the dignity and value of life regardless of the medical state. Thus, intentional killing to preserve dignity is unlawful before God since it mocks his plans and position as the creator of humanity.
Legalizing euthanasia can lead to many unlawful and unnecessary deaths due to abuse of power and incorrect diagnoses. Supporters of euthanasia argue that it is an individual right to decide how they live or die. Nevertheless, the argument does not consider the physician’s role in decision-making, such as reports on the patient’s medical state and time left to live. Physicians are in charge of recommending treatment and availability of medication that may improve a patient’s health. Therefore, they are in charge of determining the quality of a patient’s life, pain, and suffering to suggest the next steps in medication.
To that end, patients agree to euthanasia after the doctor’s advice, which contradicts individual autonomy. A patient may be willing to live but consent to euthanasia when a physician’s feedback results in hopelessness and desperation for prolonged suffering. Arguably, physicians can use their power to condemn healthy but incompetent patients to a good death. Since a doctor’s judgment is final, individual autonomy is corrupted, which makes euthanasia a weapon for murder.
Conversely, opponents of euthanasia argue that the practice may be a civilized cover-up for murder to eliminate individuals unable to care for themselves. In most cases, a patient’s family may request euthanasia due to various reasons, such as the burden of caregiving and financial constraints.
For instance, patients in vegetative states cannot communicate, and family members may decide to end their lives intentionally to avoid wasting time in giving care and financial resources. In such cases, euthanasia becomes murder since the patient did not consent to death. Therefore, the practice should not be legalized to preserve human lives and unlawful killings due to power misuse.
Finally, legislation related to euthanasia contains vague terms that may be misunderstood and misused by society to get rid of family members. For instance, the law does not provide a clear definition of terminal illness, making it challenging to determine patients with critical medical conditions, which may be subject to a good death.
Apart from the law, medical professionals have contradicting views regarding the assessment of terminal illness, posing challenges in determining terminal illness. Kumar et al. argue that most medical diagnoses are determined by statistical averages, which do not give definite prognoses for individual patients. In rare instances, terminally ill patients show signs of recovery after prolonged medication. Thus, legalizing the practice may lead to getting rid of individuals regardless of their medical condition, the possibility of recovery, and the time left to live.
From the arguments, both sides give solid views about euthanasia and its impact on society if it is legalized. Proponents of the practice argue that individuals have a right to decide their life and method of death as long as it does not hurt others. Secondly, each person has a right to a good death with dignity, which can be achieved through euthanasia. At the same time, euthanasia can eliminate the societal and medical burden of caregiving for patients without survival prospects, leading to a happy society.
On the contrary, opponents claim that the right to life is God-given and only He can decide when to take it. At the same time, legalizing euthanasia can increase unnecessary and unlawful deaths since every member of society may take on euthanasia at any point in life. Finally, physicians and caregivers may abuse their power and recommend intentionally killing incompetent patients with a possibility of recovery. Considering both sides, euthanasia should not be legalized since it destroys the dignity of life as a gift given by a supreme being. Although individual autonomy is important, matters concerning life and death should be protected under the fundamental morals of a decent society.
Bibliography
Dierickx, Sigrid, Luc Deliens, Joachim Cohen, and Kenneth Chambaere. “Involvement of Palliative Care in Euthanasia Practice in a Context of Legalized Euthanasia: A Population-Based Mortality Follow-Back Study.” Palliative Medicine 32, no. 1 (2018): 114–122.
Kumar, Ajay, Ajit Avasthi, and Aseem Mehra. “Euthanasia: A Debate—for and Against.” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research 55, no. 2 (2021): 91–96.
Luzon, Golan. “The Practice of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Meets the Concept of Legalization.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 13, no. 2 (2018): 329–345.
Van der Haak, Donovan. “Death Anxiety, Immortality Projects and Happiness: A Utilitarian Argument against the Legalization of Euthanasia.” Conatus 6, no. 1 (2021): 159.
