Should Euthanasia (Mercy Killing) Be Legal?
Topic

Should Euthanasia (Mercy Killing) Be Legal?

by kate added 6 months ago

Yes Add Point
  • 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

    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.  
    2.  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.
    3. 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.

    1http://www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html

    by heraclitus added 6 months ago 2 0

    According to the International Covenants on Human Rights of the United Nations, the right to self-determination has a universal application.1 Not only does it apply to the collective; it also applies to the individual. In fact, it is considered to be a significant element of personal freedom.2 This is also reflected in the right to life and the right to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.3 Therefore, the decision on whether to live or die should be solely up to the individual concerned. When the quality of life is greatly affected, it would be inhumane to let that individual suffer. These human rights conventions have been set into place exactly to prevent such cruelty and inhumane suffering. The right to self-determination has already been implemented as a leading ethical principle in healthcare settings, especially with regards to end-of-life care.4 However, our human rights do not stop there. Terminally ill patients should not be forced to slowly and painfully deteriorate until death finally relieves them. It is within their right to self-determination to choose to die with dignity. Infringing upon this fundamental universal right would be a threat to the principle of personal freedom and an insult to humanity.

    1 http://www.unpo.org/article/4957

    2 https://www.amnesty.nl/encyclopedie/zelfbeschikking-en-mensenrechten

    3 https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jul/01/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-uk

    4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21553575

    by kate added 6 months ago 1 0

    While family members are often the ones who provide support to terminally ill patients or elderly with degenerative diseases, they often face a heavy financial, legal and administrative burden. A lot of time, money and effort is spent on convincing the court to make an exception so that their loved one can have an assisted death.1 In the meanwhile, these family members have to take care of their loved one and find the time to work in order to pay for the high out-of-pocket expenditures on the end-of-care treatment when their loved one does not have a health insurance. What is even worse, the individuals who are longing to die with dignity can decide to commit suicide out of desperation.2 Research has indicated that in a typical case of suicide, “the surviving family members experience anger and prolonged, abnormal grieving; dealing with the suicide of a relative is generally much more difficult than dealing with the loss of that relative through natural death”.3 The legalization of euthanasia would relieve this suffering of family members. The supporting family members would no longer have to wait or fight for special approval from the court, they would not have to see their loved one suffering knowing that he or she does not want to continue like this anymore and they could mentally prepare themselves for what is going to happen.

    1 https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jul/01/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-uk

    2 https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Research_FOI_Suicides.pdf

    3 https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mfr/4919087.0001.103/--physician-assisted-suicide-family-issues?rgn=main;view=fulltext

    by kate added 6 months ago 0 0

  • There will never be enough regulatory safeguards to rule out involuntary euthanasia. Research has provided evidence that the laws and safeguards concerning euthanasia are regularly ignored. In fact, “about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported”.1 Although this research has only been conducted and published in 2011, a similar finding was already present in 1993. To be more specific, Lord Walton, chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics looking into euthanasia, said that “we concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalization of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused”.2 This puts especially vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the disabled and others who are not actively contributing to society at risk of being the target of involuntary euthanasia. The elderly might be pressured into it by their family members because they are a financial burden.3 Moreover, doctors could take matters in their own hands and could start to ‘play God’, considering the cost-effectiveness of euthanasia. In addition, with the increase in popularity of extreme right-wing populists as well as the growing xenophobia in society, it is not unreasonable to believe that the legalization of euthanasia could lead to the involuntary euthanasia of for example refugees or people of certain religious groups. We cannot just simply trust on the good morals of the doctors in this regards, given the fact that the Nazis were also able to set up large-scale programs of involuntary euthanasia.4 We cannot and we must not allow for this ever to be repeated under any regime.

    1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

    2 https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldasdy/86/5020324.htm

    3 http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiapoliticalkeyissues/economics/

    4 http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-euthanasia.htm

    by kate added 6 months ago 0 0