Controversy

= Ethics: Is Euthanasia Morally Right or Wrong? = Like most issues involving life and death, euthanasia attracts lots of attention due to its highly sensitive subject matter. Similar to abortion, there are the "pro-choice"/"right-to-die" group (obviously, the pro-euthanasia people) and the "pro-life" group (obviously, the condemners of euthanasia).

http://www.kumah.org/uploaded_images/QuestionMark3-720913.jpg

Ok, so we've established in previous pages that euthanasia is simply "ending another person's life to relieve otherwise uncontrollable suffering." (Yount 128).

 **So how do we define death ?** Before all this fancy-schmancy medical technology that could support life artificially (respirators to help breathing, food tubes to feed incapacitated patients, renal/liver dialysis to perform kidney/liver functions for patients, etc), people accepted "a permanent cessation of all vital functions" which causes "the end of life." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online) But, since the advent of medical equipment that can support life, we need a better definition. So, typically, death can be defined as "an irreversible coma" characterized by "unreceptivity and unresponsitivity"--no response to "externally applied stimuli", an inability to breathe on one's own, and most importantly, a "permanently nonfunctioning brain. (Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School 6-8)   In addition, with superior medical treatments for disease like pneumonia and influenza that wiped out much of the population, the diseases killing the human population now are long-term degenerative diseases, which cause lots of pain and suffering and generally do not have a cure. Thus, it is only now that we are confronting the issue of "euthanasia."

So...why do people think euthanasia is morally wrong???

Arguments for Euthanasia:
 * The "Right-to-Die" group believe that this right to choose death is guaranteed by the Constitution. Euthanasia, some believe, is just another way of "suicide", and the law cannot control "suicide," unlike before when the law would discourage individuals from committing suicide by blocking the inheritance of property to their heirs.
 * Legalising euthanasia would be like legalising abortion; the law permits //a choice//, but doesn't force anyone to make that choice.
 * "Death with dignity"; they believe that the quality of life is most important and that death is more preferable to a life of prolonged suffering.
 * It would relieve the financial burdens of already grief-stricken family members who must see their loved ones in a state where they either are suffering or will never come back.
 * Some individuals believe that the "Judeo-Christian beliefs" permit euthanasia because although choosing death--most of the time--is wrong, some would consider being helplessly dependent on machinese to carry out basic functions as //not// life. As Joseph Edelheit says in his essay "Assisted Suicide Is Not Contrary to Judeo-Christian Beliefs", "Were Moses speaking today, I pray he would charge with a more relevant admonition--'Choose life...unless it is a machine!' " (Edelheit 45)
 * To keep alive someone who wishes to die is wasting resources; instead, care/attention should be lavished on those who could actually be saved.

Arguments against Euthanasia
 * Our society "bas[es] its moral "views primarily on the fundamental values of Judaism and Christianity", which preaches that life is priceless and gifted to them by the "Creator" (a.k.a. God), and therefore only the Creator/God has the right to end it. To kill oneself is defying the sanctity of life.
 * The legalisation of euthanasia would pressure the "terminally ill" to end their lives, because high medical expenses place a heavy financial burden on their family's shoulders. Giving people the right to choose should not also pressure people who still want to live to die.
 * If a patient ended his/her life conveniently right before a cure could be found, then it would be a waste of life. There's many hypotethical "what ifs" and situations where a cure may be found in a patient's "natural" lifetime" had s/he not decided to be euthanized.
 * Some believe there is a fine line between "ending treatment" and "ending life." Death would have been the natural course had "treatment" not interfered (and sometimes may happen even with treatment), so it may be considered OK, but ending a life is a "direct intrustion with the sole intent to end that person's life." (Otremba 22)
 * With some measure of understanding of the human psyche, when do we judge a patient's plea for euthanasia to be due to psychological imbalance? What will be the rule in deciding whether the patient is in the right "frame of mind" and granting the patient's plea is appropriate?
 * Even though less and less doctors are asked to swear the "Hippocratic Oath" after graduation, the Oath demands that "to please no one will [the doctor] prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause [the patient's] death."
 * Governments could potentially abuse this “privilege” for eugenic purposes, like the Nazis. For example, should infants born with birth defects or physical/psychological disorders be "allowed" to live? The "pro-life" supporters argue that if euthanasia were legalised that such cruel atrocities may occur.

Previous: Modern History of Euthanasia Next: Laws Regarding Euthanasia