Voluntary_Euthanasia

Mary is the average woman living in middle America. A retired teacher, she’s looking forward to a six month retreat to Europe with her husband, John. The trip is all Mary can think about on her way to her doctor’s appointment. One week after the appointment she gets a call from the doctor asking her to come in for a visit. Nothing could prepare her for the news she was about to get: Mary has stage four cancer and only six months to live. And there is nothing that can be done except to help her slowly die in hospice. Although the story of Mary and John is fictitious, there are multitudes of terminal diagnoses every year and those patients are typically left with the only option of dying a painfully slow death. Shouldn’t there be another option' Voluntary active euthanasia is a topic that raises many difficult moral questions. After considering arguments for and against this practice, it can be shown that voluntary active euthanasia on a terminally ill patient with no foreseeable recovery, overseen by a qualified, willing and competent physician, is morally permissible. Under the right circumstances voluntary active euthanasia is permissible because the autonomy of the individual allows him or her to decide whether extreme pain and suffering is a condition that he or she wishes to endure (Brock, 75). Autonomy is defined as the right of self government or personal freedom. Every person has the right to make personal and private decisions as referred to in the American Constitution. Since death is the most personal of all things, individuals should then have the right to dictate when they die and under what circumstances. To deny people the choice of death by voluntary active euthanasia is to force them to do something that may be against their will and could prolong their suffering and compromise their dignity (Brock, 75). Death should be with dignity but modern medicine has prevented nature from running its natural course. Disallowing patients to mitigate pain in the final stages of their lives is inhuman and indicative of a disregard for the realities of profound suffering. If society recognizes the autonomy of individuals by granting them the right to privacy of religion and property, then the logical consequence is to allow people to decide the circumstances of their own death. Those against euthanasia claim that patients are often too affected by their illnesses to make sensible decisions about their future, but this denies them their true autonomy because every decision, regardless of the context, is always influenced by internal and external factors. Once autonomy is given the central position and the avoidance of pain and suffering is a rational option, the only arguments that remain against voluntary active euthanasia are: ▪ Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong (Mappes, Zembaty, 60). ▪ Killing is incompatible with the professional responsibilities of the physician (Mappes, Zembaty, 60). ▪ Any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to a detrimental slippery slope of social consequences (i.e., a lessening of respect for human life) (Mappes, Zembaty, 60). ▪ It would reduce motivation for medical research and improvement of curative or symptomatic treatments for terminal pathologies because patients might be influenced to accepting the option of ending their own life (Potts, 78). ▪ Regulation would be difficult and legal loopholes for government and bureaucratic intrusion into a decision of ending treatment that should be left up to patients, families, and doctors (Potts, 78). Killing means to deprive of life, cause extreme pain or discomfort or to commit murder. In contrast, voluntary active euthanasia actually relieves symptoms without having to cause extreme harm or discomfort. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia is not considered killing, it is simply a matter of helping one to die. In terms of the doctor – patient relationship, it will not be undermined by the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia; instead it will clarify and confirm the relationship (Brock, 76). Since the doctor is acting on the patient’s request, by means of proper procedure or advanced directive, it will actually increase the trust in physician patient relationships, due to patient understanding that the physician will provide aid in dying when it is voluntarily requested (Brock, 76). Some feel that the introduction of legislation allowing voluntary active euthanasia will cause a gradual movement to non-voluntary euthanasia and the killing of people whom doctors feel are no longer serving a purpose in society or are taking up hospital beds. This sentiment, however, is offset by evidence from the Netherlands that such callous though processes have not occurred provided that consent is maintained as the cornerstone of voluntary euthanasia and that the process is tightly regulated (Mappes, Zembaty, 64). Taking this into account, it is more humane to act by request in the best interest of a suffering and terminally ill patient. In addition, if we stay within the parameters of voluntary active euthanasia, the individual consequences of peaceful death will have neutral effects on society. Instead of removing quality of care, the introduction of voluntary active euthanasia will enhance care and provide a greater number of treatment options. With the money saved from needlessly keeping patients alive against their own appeals, hospitals and research facilities could then put that money towards innovative, preventive medicine. The strongest argument against voluntary active euthanasia pertains to the fear of its creating another area for bureaucratic intrusion into highly personal decisions (Potts, 78). With the right provisions and laws set in place, the conversation of voluntary active euthanasia would always be between, patients, doctors and families as demonstrated by the Oregon Model. In Oregon terminally ill patients must go through a rigid series of the legal steps before the physician prescribes them a lethal dose of medication. First, the patient must make an oral request and the attending physician must wait fifteen days before writing the prescription. During this time the doctor must inform the patient of the diagnosis and all other options (i.e., pain control, hospice). Two physicians must also determine if the patient is capable of making a well informed choice and if either of these physicians believes the patients judgment is impaired (i.e. mental illness, depression), the patient must be referred to counseling (Mappes, Zembaty, 63). With terminal illnesses there are two choices: let the disease run its course, or allow the inevitable death to come sooner. The question is which one is of more benefit to the patients and acts in their best interests' The legalization of euthanasia would allow the introduction of a quick and easier death when all other medical interventions are deemed futile. Since one of the main aims of medicine is to relieve suffering, it is surely a medical duty to relieve the suffering of a patient through death. Euthanasia allows the greatest good for the greatest number of people because the patient’s suffering is removed, the family can grieve properly, medical staff can avoid stressful grief and the very high costs of terminal care for the patient is removed. Above all, euthanasia prevents a sacred human life from being reduced to endless hours of misery that patients may not have desired for themselves.