Euthanasia: Death with dignity or murder?
Euthanasia, the deliberate, direct termination of a patient’s life by a physician at the request of the patient and their family with the intention of terminating pain and suffering, is a controversial topic, and its legality is often the subject of ethical debate.
Phrased clinically, euthanasia seems questionable and perhaps even putrid. But really, it is no different than putting your pet down when they are suffering from an agonizing disease. Such an act towards animals is seen as kind, so why do we deny this kindness towards humans?
The first argument against euthanasia stems from a doctor’s perspective. To some healthcare professionals, euthanasia compromises their duties under the Hippocratic Oath, an ethical vow taken by all physicians. A key principle of the oath is the idea of treating the ill to the best of your ability and to “first, do no harm.” In the debate around euthanasia, this principle is often foregrounded. Can the termination of life be the best possible treatment for some illnesses?
The existence of palliative care, which seeks to relieve pain, is often cited as a reason why euthanasia should not be allowed. Euthanasia is often seen as too easy to misuse and too hard to regulate. There are other options for end-of-life care, such as palliative care or hospice, that possess less potential for abuse.
But, at the same time, it is not easy or even possible to understand what patients with fatal diseases endure emotionally and physically. Only the patients themselves know what this is like and whether it is something they want to experience with the time they have left.
They have the right to make decisions for themselves and to choose to die with dignity. Yet, a dilemma that arises here is the patient’s mental capacity to make a decision in lucid standing.
To address this concern, it is first important to have patients go through psychological consults to rule out possible depression, other mental illness, or motivational factors that could influence such a decision. Depression, for instance, can increase the likelihood of a patient requesting euthanasia.
Additionally, patients may feel as though they are a financial, emotional, or mental burden on their families or others, further incentivizing them to consent to euthanasia. A psychological consult could not only help rule out these possibilities but also help patients determine the right decision for them, given their circumstances.
Some may still argue that determining competence is too complex. They could also insist that resources such as staff, equipment, hospital beds, and medication would be better spent on treatments intended to save lives than not.
There is also a risk that, because of the ambiguity surrounding the definition of euthanasia, it could expand to include individuals beyond the terminally-ill. While all of these concerns are valid, it is ultimately the most humane to allow a person experiencing intractable suffering to be allowed to choose to end their pain.
There is no end in sight for discussions on euthanasia. Countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Canada, and Colombia have legalized euthanasia.
On the other hand, we see a divide within the U.S. The practice is illegal federally, but legal in states such as Colorado, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, and California. I foresee that the discussion will be ongoing, but it is important to acknowledge both sides of the debate before coming to a decision on your own.
I believe that, with respect to patients’ freedom of choice, dignity, and beliefs about quality of life, the option of euthanasia should exist for those who are suffering. Patients and their families should not be stripped of their ability to choose a dignified death if that is what they desire after exploring all other possible options. If the choice came down to you, what would you believe?
~ Saathvika Diviti `25
