The issue of euthanasia is discussed practically in all areas related to medicine, and this topic will remain relevant for a long time. It is the practice of ending the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease and experiencing unbearable suffering as a result of this disease at one’s request (Dumsday 16). The issue of euthanasia may be claimed to be one of the most controversial and still unanswered questions. A real struggle is unfolding among lawyers, philosophers, physicians, sociologists, and theologians. The main moral question of euthanasia takes the form of a dilemma: “What would be the greatest evil, to let the patient die (kill the patient) or to continue their suffering life?”. However, other countries impose a ban on this practice for numerous reasons. Even though the supporters of euthanasia believe it frees a person from suffering, its opponents see euthanasia as murder and a direct violation of medical duty.
On the one hand, euthanasia or assisted suicide is considered a legal escape from all sufferings caused by intolerable pain. Today, the procedure is officially allowed in Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and some U.S. states (Eboch 35). The first argument is strong and obvious because it is based on common sense that life is good as long as people can enjoy it and actually live. Accordingly, if a person’s physical suffering is so great that it covers all the joys of life, and he is able to express his desire to end his life unequivocally, there are grounds to justify euthanasia ethically.
The proponents also claim that the reason for procedure legalization is a material component. Often, the treatment of seriously ill patients and the maintenance of their lives are very expensive and burden relatives and people close to the patient. The argument is aimed at a pragmatic understanding of the welfare of the relatives of a dying person. Therefore, based on the best intentions, the patients themselves want to end their lives to get rid of such hardships of loved ones. In addition, life can be considered a blessing only when a person lives meaningfully. This argument refers to the fact that a person’s life is a great blessing, allowing them to think and enjoy food, art, and other pleasures. If the disease has reduced a person to a vegetative state and deprived them of consciousness, their life is no longer fully human and, therefore, is not considered a blessing. In this case, ending a person’s life is similar to cutting down a dead tree.
What is more, unbearable pain caused by the disease causes hellish suffering for the patient. Treatment and maintenance of seriously ill patients take much money from society. The argument is built around a realistic view of resource allocation (Calati et al. 169). Maintaining a person in a state of agony is painful for them and their loved ones and wastes the resources of a medical institution (Peters 86). Medicines, equipment, and the efforts of doctors can be directed instead to the treatment of those people who can still be saved.
Numerous moral principles can justify euthanasia, for it can be a blessing. The Golden Rule recommends treating others as one wants to be treated (Phillips 49). This statement may be relevant to the case of assisted suicide, for the doctors know what terminally ill patients experience and the hardships they have to undergo (Phillips 50). Hence, applying the lens of the Golden Rule, a healthcare professional may wish to die solely to relieve their pain.
Meanwhile, the proponents suggest that euthanasia must be prohibited since it can be compared to murder. If active euthanasia is legalized, the medical staff will be tempted to use it not so much based on the interests and desires of the patient but from other, much less humane considerations (Sulmasy et al. 1395). Assisted suicide gives a new definition to the term “medicine”, which now also refers to a deadly poison prescribed by a doctor with the explicit intention of killing a person.
Additionally, assisted suicide destroys the purpose of medical institutions: to treat patients, save lives and reduce pain. If you include the murder of patients in the list of “medical services”, it will be an encroachment on the very essence of medicine (Borasio et al. 982). Euthanasia requires the state and medical institutions to determine whether a person should live. As a result, people with disabilities become second-class people since their lives are less valuable than the lives of people without disabilities.
The patient’s conscious desire to end his torment is an insufficient basis for euthanasia. Allowing euthanasia only on the basis of the dying person’s will equates euthanasia with suicide; thus, it is considered a blessing. (Rubenfeld and Sulmasy 83). From time immemorial, people have treated the dead with trepidation and revered burials despite the fact that the bodies of the deceased have long since turned to dust (Skitka). A loved one who finds oneself in a coma or vegetative state deserves respect no less than the remains of a deceased relative.
Finally, from a religious point of view, suicide is a sin. Most theological studies suggest that a doctor’s role is to save the dying from death and not take their life. In this sense, the argument is logical, as assisted suicide would contradict this principle. As Christians believe (and almost the entire Western civilization), life after death exists, and suicide is an action with huge moral consequences (Nicolini et al. 1249). The Golden Rule can be applied to the opposing side as well. For instance, a doctor, knowing that a patient is dying, will alleviate his suffering without implementing euthanasia.
Personally speaking, physician-assisted suicide is a right equal to that for life. Each person is endowed with the possibility of deciding what to do with their life and how to end it. Living in suffering is torturing and makes people vulnerable; therefore, euthanasia is an option for those exhausted from struggling. As a result, one’s right can be fully executed without legal issues.
In summation, legalizing euthanasia is a very responsible decision, where neither one nor two factors play a fundamental role but a whole set. It incorporates the religiosity of society, the level of education, the level of medicine, the level of morbidity of people, the attitude of society to death, the number of the population, and others. Undoubtedly, euthanasia cannot be taken as the final decision in the fight against incurable diseases. Scientists will develop new methods and means of therapy for these pathologies, but until this happens, the torment of people will continue; therefore, euthanasia cannot be excluded from people’s lives.
Works Cited
Borasio, Gian Domenico, et al. “Regulation of assisted Suicide Limits the Number of Assisted Deaths.” Lancet (London, England), vol. 393, no. 10175, 2019, pp. 982-983.
Calati, Raffaella, et al. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Psychiatric Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 135, 2021, pp. 153-173.
Dumsday, David. Assisted Suicide in Canada: Moral, legal, and Policy Considerations. UBC Press, 2021.
Eboch, M. M. Physician-Assisted Suicide. Greenhaven Publishing, 2020.
Nicolini, Marie E., et al. “Should Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide for Psychiatric Disorders Be Permitted? A Systematic Review of Reasons.” Psychological Medicine, vol. 50, no. 8, 2020, pp. 1241-1256.
Peters, Jennifer, editor. Critical Perspectives on Assisted Suicide. Enslow Publishing, 2020.
Phillips, Andelka M., et al., editors. Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Rubenfeld, Sheldon, and Daniel Sulmasy, editors. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Lexington Books, 2020.
Skitka, Linda J., et al. “Moral and Religious Convictions: Are They the Same or Different Things?.” PloS One, vol. 13, no. 6, 2018, e0199311.
Sulmasy, Daniel P., et al. “Physician-Assisted Suicide: Why Neutrality by Organized Medicine Is neither Neutral or Appropriate.” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 33, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1394-1399.