Euthanasia is an extension of classic suicide problem: who owns our life?
But a better question should ask about people who are affected by our life (and our death), and the impact they get. The obvious answer is of course: ourselves, the person itself. For ourselves, the only cost is opportunity cost: opportunity to graduate, opportunity to go to exotic vacation, opportunity to meet loved ones, etc. The next party that is affected is affiliated organization. This can range from local cooperation to the state of the person. For affiliated organization, the cost varies depending on the influence of that person in the organization. The bigger the influence, the higher the cost. But the impact tends to be impersonal, yet could be fatal. For example, if a country loses a troop, then it will lose its power insignificantly. But, if a company loses its main investor, the impact will be bigger. The last affected party will be acquaintances. We will only count primary acquaintances, that is close family and friends. For them, it could mean massive problem of financial and emotional. A person could lose her mind knowing her best friend is gone, a kid could be in financial burden from his parent’s debt, etc.
But as stated, Euthanasia is an extension of suicide because it has many fundamental different. Such practice can be organized, monitored, and regulated. But what kind of regulation should be applied?
like any medical regulation, it should be done by the government. Any government that is planning to legalize euthanasia must commit in creating a thorough and rigorous regulation. It’s true that the likelihood is that the first or two attempt in such regulation will be problematic, but it’s too early to say that no regulation will be enough. The regulation should refer to the 3 aspects of affected party, and apply a very demanding check toward each of them. If all the 3 aspects passed the regulation, then the person is eligible for euthanasia. There are many possible problem that may occur and we will be discussing each one of them:1
- "Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide leads to suicide contagion. When the media portrays assisted suicide as a means of “taking control” or claims that someone helping another person kill themselves is “death with dignity,” then society (including teenagers) is receiving the dangerous message that suicide is a legitimate answer to life's problems” Solution: This affect can be minimized by intentionally discouraging the practice, WHILE legalizing it. This can be done by one, make the regulation as hard as necessary. And two, launch a campaign against suicide.
- Euthanasia will become non-voluntary. Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about "being a burden," could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide. Solution: This problem can be overcome by a well-designed regulation targeted for the person. Government should create a safe and welcoming environment in the application process. With one goal in mind: getting the truth that is what the person really wants.
- Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human life under some circumstances such as self defense - but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life - either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved - life is only taken. Solution: Importance and value to whom? In my opinion, that would be the 3 aspect discussed earlier. The regulation should be designed so when all 3 parties have passed the regulation, it means the value is less than the price. Bottom line: While being discouraged and highly regulated, euthanasia should be legal.