Everyone Has the Right to Legal Euthanasia
Course Name and Number
Several philosophical and ethical issues are raised by the contentious and complicated topic of the right to legal euthanasia. Fundamentally, the right to legal euthanasia is the liberty to decide to terminate one’s own life in a peaceful and respectable way, frequently with the help of a doctor. This right is usually only used when a person has a terminal illness or is dealing with an untreatable disorder that causes individuals excruciating suffering and agony. Euthanasia advocates contend that it is a caring and humane solution to provide people the ability to end their misery while retaining take charge of their lives. They contend that the ability to choose one’s own life and death is a fundamental human right and that depriving someone of this right violates their autonomy and dignity. However, those who are opposed to legal euthanasia contend that it is immoral and violates the standards of the healthcare professionals. They contend that euthanasia should not be permitted because it could result in abuses and the degradation of human existence and that practitioners should save lives rather than take them. Nevertheless, everyone has the right to Legal Euthanasia regardless of their country’s legislation and regulation.
Everyone Has the Right to Legal Euthanasia
The contentious issue of euthanasia, commonly referred to as assisted suicide, has been at the center of discussion for many decades. Although some contend that euthanasia is a kind of murder and must be prohibited, others contend that everybody has the freedom to have a dignified and peaceful death. Euthanasia may be a viable alternative for some individuals for various reasons. Some people may use it to escape a fatal condition that is giving them excruciating pain and suffering. Others might use it to avoid the loss of self-determination and honor that frequently results from advancing age or severe disease.
Forms of Legal Euthanasia
Various actions are classified as “euthanasia.” These distinctions between the different iterations are listed below. These include voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, and others. The intentional killing of a patient, for instance, by giving them a lethal dose of medicine, is known as active euthanasia. They are, at times, referred to as “aggressive” euthanasia. The purposeful withdrawal of artificial life support, for instance, a ventilator or breathing tube, is passive euthanasia (Abohaimed et al., 2019). Several researchers distinguish between stopping ventilatory support and no longer giving it (the person is on life support but later withdrawn from it). Assisted suicide is performed willingly and with the individual’s consent. Euthanasia is carried out voluntarily: with the patient’s permission. For instance, if the patient is unconscious and it is unclear what they want to transpire to them, it may be done against their permission.
Standard versus Unusual Therapy
Controlling bleeding, giving antibiotics and painkillers, and repairing fractures are all usual healthcare therapies. Nevertheless, it is occasionally perceived as unusual therapy or care to maintain patient respiration with supplemental oxygen. As per various ethicists, letting a person die by stopping artificial medical therapy or care is okay, but it is unacceptable to halt getting continuous care (Hinman, 2020). This idea is contradictory. Specific individuals contend that the boundary separating standard treatment from extraordinary therapies is arbitrary, flimsy, unclear, or often dynamic as technology evolves.
Death Planned versus Expected
Certain ethicists consider it important if a critically ill person dies due to purposely taking painkillers, whether the demise was meant or just anticipated. Even though the fatality was not intended to occur, it might be ethically acceptable if it was anticipated. The ethical theory known as the principle of double effect backs up this assertion. People must evaluate the viewpoints of those unfortunate enough to debate whether to terminate their own life. It seems unwise to depend on the viewpoint of individuals who have never had to consider this issue because euthanasia is a straightforward decision. According to Yildirim (2020), it was discovered that patients gave reasons for choosing assisted suicide, including pain, humiliation, mental impairment, and feeling out of control. For them, the chance to pass away peacefully at a moment of their choice, surrounded by loved ones, was better than continuing to endure indefinitely. Since they are the ones for whom the issue of assisted suicide is most important, terminally ill patients concur that euthanasia should be permitted.
Right to Legal Euthanasia Worldwide
In the US, the United Kingdom, and Canada, there have been failed attempts to invoke legally rooted rights arguments to dispute the legal restrictions on assisted suicide. Their rejection renders it unlikely that assisted suicide or euthanasia will be legalized using constitutionally protected rights in any significant common law or European country. The Human Rights Act recognizes the “right to life” as a natural right. Although suicide involves the artificial ending or eradication of life, it is contradictory and conflicting with the idea of the “right to life.” (Hermine, 2019). Euthanasia is currently permitted in Belgium, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. The states of Washington and Oregon in the US permitted pas in 1999 and 1997, correspondingly.
Euthanasia is permitted intermittently in the nations, as mentioned above. Euthanasia is normally only permitted in these nations for terminally ill patients who have expressed a deliberate and thoughtful demand for euthanasia and are in intolerable pain (Nicolini et al. 2022). The morality of euthanasia is less established in other nations, including the US. Physician-assisted euthanasia for individuals in the last stages of illness is permitted in some states, including Washington and Oregon. The majority of states, though, prohibit euthanasia. It is significant to remember that euthanasia’s legalization varies from nation to nation. For instance, euthanasia was permitted in Canada in 2016, although only for a select group of patients who satisfied certain requirements.
Reasons and Benefits of the Right to Legal Euthanasia
The decision to use legal euthanasia may differ from person to person. Among the potential advantages of legal euthanasia are the following: For some with serious disabilities or fatal illnesses, it can ease their pain. Instead of continuing to suffer or be dependent on others, it enables people to pass away peacefully and on to their circumstances (Hermine, 2019). It might bring comfort and tranquility to the person, their relatives, and their family members. It can help you save money on costly medical procedures that might not help you live longer. It may allow people to choose the moment and conditions of their demise. It may lighten the load on the medical system and make resources available to treat more people.
Right to Life Activists
According to proponents of the “right-to-death” idea, persons who have a terminal, degenerative, disabling, or excruciating illness should be given the opportunity to die peacefully. This assertion is additionally substantiated for people with persistent, debilitating, non-terminal ailments, such as severe cognitive problems (Hermine, 2019). Most of these appeals are brought forward by the sufferers, their close allies, or those responsible for caring for them. The caregiver is subjected to significant mental, financial, emotional, physical, time, and social obligations. It is, therefore, uncommon to hear requests from a person with a mental illness or close family members to give the suffering them any poison.
The legal right to refuse medical assistance, particularly therapy that prolongs existence, is properly established in nations like India, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the United States. For instance, someone with blood malignancy may reject medical care or resist nasogastric feedings. Accepting the freedom to reject medical therapy opens the door for passive euthanasia (Nour, 2020). Many individuals do contend that procuring medical abortion prior to 4 months of gestation is active involuntary euthanasia. The subject of mercy killing of malformed infants was previously addressed in the Netherlands.
Right to Death and Promoting Organ Donation
Many persons who are permanently disabled or terminally ill are unwilling to upset their close relatives. Euthanasia advocates may contend that by honoring the “Right to die” in a distinguished way, they validate the “Right to life” (Popa, 2021). Nevertheless, this right should be weighed against other communal concerns like safeguarding human dignity and advancing the general welfare because it is not unqualified. Euthanizing terminally ill individuals grants an opportunity to foster organ donation. Several organ dysfunction people requiring transplants will gain from this in response. Euthanasia gives individuals who require organs the “right to life” and the “right to die” for critically ill people. Nevertheless, because this is such a complicated matter, many things would need to be taken into account, such as moral considerations and possible effects on the rate of organ donation.
Additionally, economic variables may influence the choices taken by patients, specifically individuals who do not desire to be a liability to their relatives or be perceived as weak, self-centered, or irrational, and they have established components of the recommendations. When they may be more completely reliant on their relatives for emotional support, they can be vulnerable to proposals to terminate their lives as the best alternative for all the hopeless, implying they possess “liability” to die (Popa, 2021). On the other hand, the people who champion euthanasia are encouraged by the ideas of “Self” and “Mercy.”
For numerous people, the quality of their lives is more significant than their sanctity or duration. Most crucially, individuals are entitled to pick their treatment method if their life satisfaction is unacceptable due to unbearable and terrible pain (Nour, 2020). It is an “unjustifiable invasion of individual freedom” to prohibit a patient from making such autonomous choices. A physician who contributes directly to survival must show mercy to the patient.
The anticipated savings to the hospital setting is another justification from a financial standpoint for legalizing euthanasia. The costs associated with providing continued care for those who are terminally ill can put a considerable burden on healthcare facilities. Medical treatment for these people can be quite costly (Popa, 2021). Legal euthanasia might be viewed as a method to spare resources that could be utilized to care for other people, possibly lowering total healthcare expenses. It is crucial to remember that choosing to seek legal euthanasia is a complicated and private decision, and people may do so for a number of different reasons. These financial considerations are but one factor that might play a role in someone’s choice.
Reduce Stigma Surrounding Death
By giving people a choice between a quick, painless death and a protracted, challenging terminal condition, legalizing euthanasia can assist in alleviating the stigma associated with dying. This can allow more honest and truthful conversations about definitive treatment and lessen some of the dread and ambiguity that several individuals feel as their lives conclude. By giving patients the alternative to decide when and how they pass away, euthanasia can assist in fostering independence and dignity afterlife and grant people and their friends and families a sense of tranquility (Baril, 2022). Moreover, establishing a legal foundation for euthanasia may further assist in guaranteeing that the operation is done securely and humanely.
Depending on the country’s legal structure, whether or not a nation’s citizens’ choice about the right to lawful euthanasia matters. The legitimacy of euthanasia could be determined in various nations by taking the democratic choice established by individuals into account. Euthanasia legalization may, nevertheless, be decided upon by legislators or the justice system in various nations as opposed to the general populace (Popa, 2021). It is crucial to remember that every nation has a distinctive legal structure. Therefore, it is challenging to say without additional details whether a citizen’s vote about the right to legal euthanasia might be considered in all situations.
Laws must also protect the public interests; for example, if the populace of a nation chooses, they would like the right to euthanasia, the authorities should not be able to oppose that decision. For instance, Oregon’s assisted a majority vote approved suicide law. It shows that the populace agrees with the issue and wants to make well-informed decisions regarding their end-of-life treatment (Chakrabarti, 2020). On the other end of the scale, it describes the troubling characteristics of participants living in the UK, where assisted suicide is still illegal. In this situation, the nation’s rules intentionally obstruct its inhabitants from deciding and prolonging their misery. As a result, laws governing assisted suicide and end-of-life treatment must consider public sentiment.
Objections to euthanasia
Critics of legal euthanasia contend that it is incompatible with medical values centered on saving lives and helping those struggling. Euthanasia, they contend, is a type of assisted suicide, and doctors should not facilitate patients in taking their own lives; instead, they should attend to and assist them (Raus et al. 2021). Additionally, advocates of legal euthanasia claim that it might be misused. There is a chance that individuals might be forced to choose euthanasia or that it may be exploited to reduce healthcare expenses if there are inadequate protections and restrictions in place. Critics believe that the legalization of euthanasia must be avoided for several reasons. These consist of the following:
Violation of Medical Core Values
Critics contend that it violates the medical community’s core values, which include preserving life and easing pain. The medical community’s ethical standards prohibit euthanasia partly because it entails willfully ending a person’s life, which contradicts medicine’s core mission of saving lives and shielding patients from danger (Pesut et al., 2020). Euthanasia can also be perceived as a breach of the doctor-patient relationship based on confidence and the assurance that the medical professional would operate in the client’s favor.
Ethical Questions and Contradiction to Core Beliefs
Euthanasia raises ethical questions regarding the role of physicians and the possibility of misuse, which is an additional argument why it is contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the medical community. For instance, some individuals might be compelled to choose euthanasia by their loved ones or nurses, or they may feel compelled to do so by medical professionals who have a monetary interest in their demise. Furthermore, euthanasia may contribute to a downhill slide when it is increasingly employed for non-terminal diseases, casting doubt concerning the worth of human existence. Another issue is that lawful euthanasia may abuse disadvantaged people, like those aged, crippled, or people with chronic pain or chronic condition (Pesut et al., 2020). These people may experience a compulsion to pick euthanasia so as not to burden their family or caretakers, or they could be persuaded to do so by others. It might result in violations of authority, compulsion, and someone’s right to choose their direction of living.
According to particular religious groups, euthanasia is immoral since it contradicts the notion that life is a God-given privilege that should not be taken for granted. These organizations contend that assisted suicide is murder and that individuals must be permitted to suffer and pass away peacefully (Ziebertz, 2019). For instance, euthanasia is considered sinful by many Christians since it disobeys the rule “Thou shall not kill.” They might also contend that only God has the authority to determine when a man’s life might cease and that people should not act as if they are God by taking the life of the other. In a related manner, some Muslims contend that the Qur’an forbids euthanasia since it says that “whoever kills a person…it is as though he has slain all mankind.” Buddhist and Hindu beliefs, for example, have the potential to be understood as condemning euthanasia.
Whether euthanasia should be regarded as murder is one of the primary legal questions surrounding the practice. Euthanasia encompasses the practice of purposefully causing some other person’s death, which is prohibited in the majority of nations. This implies that any individual who aids another person in committing suicide might be prosecuted with murder, regardless of whether it is conducted to end the victim’s suffering (Young et al., 2019). The question of consent relates to euthanasia’s legal implications. Individuals desiring euthanasia should offer their full and knowledgeable permission to conduct it lawfully. This implies that the individual must be capable of making a well-informed choice and comprehending the procedure’s characteristics, dangers, and advantages.
Everyone Has the Right to Legal Euthanasia regardless of their country’s legislation and regulation. Euthanasia has merits and demerits, but from this article, it can be seen that the merits outweigh the demerits. The demerits or criticisms of euthanasia are mainly based on ethical and professional medical practices. It is unfair for authorities to dictate how someone should receive treatment or the circumstances they should live or die. I believe everyone should be free to choose their end-of-life therapy, such as the alternative to legal euthanasia.
I also think that everyone has the right to a pain-free and honorable death and that giving people the choice of legal euthanasia can assist in ensuring that they can. Furthermore, people with terminal illnesses or ailments that give them a great deal of pain and misery are entitled to the choice of how and when to terminate their life, provided they are mentally sound to doing so. Although I know this is a contentious topic, giving individuals the option to end their lives might grant them comfort and respite from pain. I also think that rigorous rules and regulations can guarantee that the procedure is secure and that only people who genuinely desire it and satisfy specific requirements use it.
The discussion around lawful euthanasia is complicated and divisive generally. Although some people contend that everyone has the right to choose how to live their lives, others contend that euthanasia violates the core values of healthcare and could be utilized inappropriately. Since it grants patients the ability to choose their outcome, euthanasia must be a fundamental human right. The government should not prevent critically sick individuals from terminating their own lives in a respectful manner since several of them would like to. Moreover, medical caregivers should always practice to give the best care, regardless of whether that includes performing assisted suicide operations. In order to avert abuses, it is essential to crafting the viable legislation carefully, but eventually, the needs of the people must be considered or taken care of.
Total words = 3010
Abohaimed, S., Matar, B., Al-Shimali, H., Al-Thalji, K., Al-Othman, O., Zurba, Y., & Shah, N. (2019). Attitudes of physicians towards different types of euthanasia in Kuwait. Medical Principles and Practice, 28(3), 199-207.
Baril, A. (2022). Theorizing the Intersections of Ableism, Sanism, Ageism and Suicidism in Suicide and Physician-Assisted Death Debates. In The Disability Bioethics Reader (pp. 221-231). Routledge
Chakrabarty, I. (2022). Euthanasia around the World: The Ethical, Legal and Medical Implications. Issue 1 Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human., 5, 131
Herminen, P. (2019). The Legality of Active Euthanasia in Relation to Human Rights and Legal Approaches to Active Euthanasia in Different States. LEurope Unie, 15, 39-47.
Hinman, L. M. (2020). Euthanasia: The moral landscape. In Why We Kill (pp. 124-139). Routledge.
Nicolini, M. E., Gastmans, C., & Kim, S. Y. (2022). Psychiatric euthanasia, suicide and the role of gender. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 220(1), 10-13.
Nour, A. (2020). Euthanasia–A right of the human being or a crime against humanity. Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 3(5), 141.
Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., … & Janke, R. (2020). Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nursing ethics, 27(1), 152-167.
Popa, M. F. (2021). What the economic analysis of law can’t do-pitfalls and practical implications. Juridical Trib., 11, 81.
Raus, K., Vanderhaegen, B., & Sterckx, S. (2021, February). Euthanasia in Belgium: Shortcomings of the Law and Its Application and of the Monitoring of Practice. In The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine (Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 80-107). US: Oxford University Press.
Yildirim, J. G. (2020). Knowledge, opinions and behaviors of senior nursing students in Turkey regarding euthanasia and factors in Islam affecting these. Journal of religion and health, 59(1), 399-415.
Young, J., Egan, R., Walker, S., Graham-DeMello, A., & Jackson, C. (2019). The euthanasia debate: synthesising the evidence on New Zealander’s attitudes. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(1), 1-21.
Ziebertz, H. G. (2019). Human Dignity, Religious Ethics or Hedonism–What Can Predict Young People’s Attitudes in Germany Towards the Right to Life in the Cases of Euthanasia and Abortion?. In Euthanasia, Abortion, Death Penalty and Religion-The Right to Life and its Limitations (pp. 83-104). Springer, Cham