EUTHANASIA

What is euthanasia?
Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patient’s suffering.
The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and
suffering.
The word “euthanasia” itself comes from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos”
(death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or
undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good
death.”
Types of euthanasia
Different practices fall under the label “euthanasia.” Here are some distinctions
demarcating different versions.
Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with
a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support
such as a ventilator or feeding tube. Some ethicists distinguish between withholding life
support and withdrawing life support (the patient is on life support but then removed
from it).

Voluntary euthanasia: with the consent of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia: without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is
unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown.. Some ethicists distinguish between
“involuntary” (against the patient’s wishes) and “nonvoluntary” (without the patient’s
consent but wishes are unknown) forms.

Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.

Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of
death.

Assisted: the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another
person, such as a physician.
There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia
are morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms,
are legal in some countries.
Mercy-killing: The term “mercy-killing” usually refers to active, involuntary or
nonvoluntary, other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient
without their explicit consent to end the patient’s suffering. Some ethicists think that
Physician-assisted suicide: The phrase “physician-assisted suicide” refers to active,
voluntary, assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides
the patient with a means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or
herself.
Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against
their will (involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost
universally condemned. During the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, in Germany, Adolf
Hitler carried out a program to exterminate children with disabilities (with or without
their parent’s permission) under the guise of improving the Aryan “race” and reducing
costs to society. Everyone now thinks this kind of euthanasia in the service of a eugenics
program was clearly morally wrong.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST EUTHANASIA (VOLUNTARY)

Ethical Arguments
 Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life
All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social
status or their potential for achievement
Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself
rather than as a means to an end
Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God
Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited. We shouldn't
treat ourselves as a means to our own ends.
And this means that we shouldn't end our lives just because it seems the most
effective way of putting an end to our suffering. To do that is not to respect our
inherent worth.
 Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are
worth less than others. It is the thinking that one’s life is less valuable than
others. Allowing euthanasia will let people know that there is an easy way out.
Knowing that suffering from a disease could be stopped by just killing yourself
even if you are still able to survive. Proponents say that the idea of euthanasia
is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death,
 euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death.” But
how can you separate the person who’s really suffering from a person who’s
just mentally unstable and just saying they want to die because of their
suffering? It isn't easy to define suffering - most of us can decide when we are
suffering but what is suffering for one person may not be suffering for another.
It's also impossible to measure suffering in any useful way, and it's particularly
hard to come up with any objective idea of what constitutes unbearable
suffering, since each individual will react to the same physical and mental
conditions in a different way. All of us are all going to die. We all have the right
to live but having the right to end your life is not correct.
Practical Arguments
 Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary
Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when
cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends.
Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling any
need to contemplate euthanasia. The World Health Organization states that
palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a normal process; it neither
hastens nor postpones death; it provides relief from pain and suffering; it
integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of the patient.

“You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your life and we
will do all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die’.

-Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement

 Care not Kill

 Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill
Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives
Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill
Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the
terminally ill
Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain
relief
 Ironically, active euthanasia legislation makes doctors less accountable and gives
them more power. Patients generally decide in favor of euthanasia on the basis of
information given to them by doctors. If a doctor confidently suggests a certain
course of action, it can be difficult for a patient to resist. However, diagnoses may be
mistaken and prognoses may be widely misjudged. Active euthanasia gives the
medical practitioner power, which in turn can be abused.

In most of these cases the decision will not be taken by the doctor, but by the patient.
The doctor will provide information to the patient to help them make their decision

Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions
about euthanasia, any legalization of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated,
puts doctors in an unacceptable position of power.

 An Age Concern dossier in 2000 showed that doctors put Do Not Resuscitate
orders in place on elderly patients without consulting them or their families

 Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives

The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure
to end their lives.
- The pressure of feeling a burden

People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those
who love and care for them. Nonetheless, if euthanasia is available, the sick person may
pressure themselves into asking for euthanasia.

- Financial pressure and Moral pressure to free up medical resources.

- Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only
solution.
Other Arguments from Saireen

 The risk of abuse: Several studies have found evidence of abuse and coercion in
countries where euthanasia is legal. For example, a study published in the New
England Journal of Medicine found that 23% of assisted deaths in the Netherlands
(where euthanasia is legal) occurred without the patient's explicit request. Another
study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that patients in Belgium
(where euthanasia is also legal) often felt pressured by their families and healthcare
providers to choose euthanasia.
 Slippery slope: There is evidence to suggest that the criteria for eligibility for
euthanasia can gradually expand over time. For example, in the Netherlands, the
criteria for eligibility have expanded beyond terminal illness and unbearable
suffering to include chronic illnesses and mental health conditions. In Canada, where
euthanasia was legalized in 2016, the criteria for eligibility have already expanded to
include individuals who are not terminally ill but have a "foreseeable" death in the
near future.

 Difficulty in determining eligibility: There is evidence to suggest that it can be

difficult to determine whether a patient is truly experiencing unbearable suffering
and is making a free and informed decision to choose euthanasia. For example, a
study published in the Journal of Palliative Medicine found that depression is often
underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients who request euthanasia.

 Potential harms to healthcare providers: There is evidence to suggest that legalizing

euthanasia could have negative consequences for healthcare providers. For example,
a survey of physicians in Ontario, Canada found that over a third of respondents felt
that they were not adequately prepared to provide euthanasia, and that providing it
caused them moral distress.

 The value of life: There is a philosophical and ethical argument that life has inherent
value and that it should be protected, even in cases of terminal illness or unbearable
suffering. This argument is based on the belief that all human life is inherently
valuable and that legalizing euthanasia sends the message that some lives are worth
less than other