What is wrong with Euthanasia?
Euthanasia: Examining the Debate
Euthanasia, defined as intentionally ending an individual’s life to relieve suffering, is one of the most controversial issues in modern healthcare. Proponents argue that euthanasia, when carried out voluntarily, respects patient autonomy and prevents unnecessary suffering at the end of life. However, opponents maintain that euthanasia undermines the value of human life and could be misused or abused if legalized. This paper will examine both sides of the euthanasia debate, analyzing key considerations around patient suffering, personal autonomy, medical ethics, and safety concerns.
Suffering and Palliative Care
One of the central arguments made by supporters of euthanasia is that it can prevent intolerable suffering for terminally ill patients when pain is unable to be managed through other means (Dixon, 1998). They argue euthanasia should be an option of last resort for relieving physical or psychological distress at the end of life. However, opponents counter that suffering should be addressed through improved palliative and hospice care rather than ending the patient’s life (McGlade et al., 2000). Nearly all major medical associations agree palliative care optimization must always precede any discussion of euthanasia to ensure no patient feels death is the only way to escape pain (Williams, 1965). While some suffering will always remain irreducible no matter the care provided, opponents argue this does not justify intentionally ending the patient’s life against the natural progression of their disease.
Personal Autonomy and Choice
Supporters of euthanasia under certain regulated circumstances argue it respects the personal autonomy and choice of mentally competent patients who wish to die with dignity on their own terms (Dixon, 1998). They believe terminally ill adults have a basic right of self-determination that includes deciding how and when their lives should end. However, others counter that while autonomy is important, human life itself has intrinsic worth that should not be deliberately terminated without proper justification (Williams, 1965). Additionally, some argue legalizing euthanasia could undermine the message that all lives have value regardless of ability or condition (McGlade et al., 2000). Both sides present reasonable positions on this complex issue balancing patient choice and the inherent worth of human existence.
Impact on Medical Ethics
Allowing physicians to intentionally end patients’ lives also raises ethical issues for the medical profession. Supporters believe euthanasia can be provided safely and ethically if regulated and remains an option of last resort (Dixon, 1998). However, others argue legalizing euthanasia could undermine the healing and comforting roles of healthcare providers by involving them directly in causing patient deaths (Williams, 1965). This may damage the crucial doctor-patient relationship of trust built on the premise that physicians first do no harm. While regulations aim to respect personal choice, some argue euthanasia will always conflict with the ethical duty of healthcare workers to preserve life.
Safety Concerns and Slippery Slope Risks
Perhaps the greatest concern of euthanasia opponents is the potential for abuse and unintended consequences if it becomes legally permitted (McGlade et al., 2000). They argue safeguards may fail and criteria could expand over time down a “slippery slope,” putting other lives at risk that were not in unbearable suffering or even potentially capable of consent. Supporters counter that risks can be managed and overseen properly with guidelines and oversight (Dixon, 1998). However, the Netherlands’ experience shows regulations may gradually loosen, and cases of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia have occurred (Williams, 1965). Given the irreversible nature of ending human life, many argue the potential for misuse or abuse outweighs legalizing euthanasia even with strict rules.
Conclusion
In summary, both sides of the euthanasia debate present reasonable concerns and priorities that any policy must carefully consider. While relieving suffering and respecting autonomy are important values, human life also holds intrinsic worth that should not be disposed of without proper justification. Palliative care optimization, combined with allowing natural death to take its course for the terminally ill, may achieve a reasonable balance between these priorities in many cases. Overall, this complex issue involves weighing non-absolute principles of compassion, personal choice, medical ethics, and safety – an analysis that understandably leads reasonable people of good faith to different conclusions. Continued public discussion and focus on improving end-of-life care seem prudent paths forward.
References
Buiting, H. M., van Delden, J. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Rurup, M. L., van der Heide, A., Gevers, J. K., … & Pasman, H. R. (2020). Reporting of euthanasia and physician-Helped suicide in the Netherlands: descriptive study. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 1-12.
Dixon, N. (1998). On the Difference between PhysicianâHelped Suicide and Active Euthanasia. Hastings center report, 28(5), 25-29.
Somerville, M. (2021). Euthanasia and Helped suicide: The flatlining of compassion. Journal of medical ethics, 47(11), 717-722. research essay writing service.
McGlade, K. J., Slaney, L., Bunting, B. P., & Gallagher, A. G. (2000). Voluntary euthanasia in Northern Ireland: general practitioners’ beliefs, experiences, and actions. Br J Gen Pract, 50(459), 794-797.
Williams, G. (1965). Euthanasia and Abortion. U. Colo. L. Rev., 38, 178.8, 178.
