Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Euthanasia, legalisation of
Section E. Social, moral and religious

The term ’euthanasia’, coming from the ancient Greek words meaning ’good death’, is used to refer to voluntary rather than compulsory euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when an individual asks to be given a lethal injection to put them out of pain and end his or her life. If a patient is helped to end his/her own life, then this is referred to as assisted suicide, and the arguments for or against are almost identical. Compulsory euthanasia — killing those who are terminally ill or who are above a certain age regardless of their wishes — is everywhere regarded as murder. In the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia has been legal since 1983 and other countries have followed by legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide including Switzerland, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Pros

[1] People should be allowed to request a ’mercy killing’ to end their suffering. Victims of cancer, AIDS or motor-neurone disease may know, in the later stages of their illness, that the only prospect for the short remainder of their life is more physical degeneration and acute suffering. They should be allowed to die with dignity with the help of, for example, a lethal injection or an overdose of morphine from a doctor.

[2] Someone may wish to write a ’living will’ stating that if they ever become a ’vegetable’ or are in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) as the result of an accident, they do not wish life support to be continued. We should respect the wishes of such people rather than extend their lifespan, when quality of life has completely deteriorated.

[3] At present, doctors are sometimes allowed, in effect, to carry out euthanasia on the grounds that the amount of painkillers they had to use to alleviate the patient’s suffering in fact turned out to be fatal. Instances of this ’double effect’ of a drug are not currently considered wrong, and allowing euthanasia is only an extension of this principle.

[4] Just as the right to vote includes the right to abstain, and the right to free speech includes the right to be silent, the right to life should be seen to include the right to choose to die. It is ’my body, my life, my choice’. Not allowing those who are too physically ill to commit suicide to do so with help amounts to discrimination against people with severe disabilities, since it is not illegal for others to commit suicide. Euthanasia, or ’doctor-assisted suicide’, should therefore also be allowed.

[6] Euthanasia also spares the loved ones of a patient the needless agony of watching them slowly degenerate and die in great pain, and gives them the comfort of knowing that they carried out the patient’s last wishes. In many cases, a death through euthanasia can provide a pain-free and loving goodbye.

Cons

[1] However much a patient is suffering, it is the role of a physician, as expressed in the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors have to take, to cure disease and restore patients to health, not to kill them. Doctors should not be forced to compromise their professional oath, nor be put under the great moral pressure of deciding when to advise a patient that euthanasia might be the best option. With the highly effective painkillers now available, there is never any need even for the terminally ill to suffer great pain. Use of painkillers, not euthanasia, is the answer to painful terminal illness.

[2] People have been known to recover from comas and PVS after considerable periods, and some ’terminally ill’ patients make miraculous recoveries. Allowing euthanasia would risk killing people who could otherwise have had years more life. With euthanasia, as with capital punishment, the price of a mistake is too high. A patient in a coma or PVS may have changed their mind subsequent to writing their ’living will’, but not altered the document. In such cases, the loved ones would be authorising the killing of someone against their wishes and ruling out the possibility of their recovery or cure.

[3] There is a qualitative difference between seeking to reduce someone’s pain and their dying as a secondary effect, and deliberately killing them. Doctors should not be allowed or required to kill their patients.

[4] There is no such thing as a ’right to die’. Suicide is always wrong, and is only legal because the act is seen as one of mental illness and is treated as such. If somebody is considered a suicide risk, then they are committed to a psychiatric unit; if a medic is called to someone who has attempted suicide, then they do all they can to revive that person. One should not respect anybody’s right to end their own life. While it is true that suicide is not illegal, assisting suicide is. Allowing such a practice will immediately open up grave dangers of abuse by unscrupulous doctors and relatives who would like to see a certain patient ’out of the way’ for the purposes of inheritance or freeing up scarce medical resources.

[6] Patients could feel under pressure to opt for euthanasia so as not to be a burden to their family. If it is an option, is it not selfish not to take it? It is better to provide palliative care and counselling to help patient and family manage their natural time together.

Possible motions

This House would legalise voluntary euthanasia.

This House believes in the right to die.

This House would assist suicide.

Related topics

Protective legislation v. individual freedom

Abortion on demand

Organs, legal sale of