Vote totals:
Yes:
100%
No:
0%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Human dignity
Suffering from a fatal illness is one of the least dignified experiences a person can suffer. Intrusive medical procedures, a loss of privacy and the feeling of being dependent all combine to make the experience unbearable. Most people in this situation would agree that a dignified death is preferable to prolonging this agony.
There are places and companies that specialise in making people with long term fatal illnesses as happy, as comfortable and also as dignified as you can be. It might not be a preferred way on earth but if you live it out in heaven things will be much better. If you were to take you own life it’s as good as murder and the suffering you will receive out of this earth will be far greater than anything you could experience on earth.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Alleviation of suffering
The main aim of medical science is not to prolong life, it is to reduce suffering. It is legal to administer painkillers which may shorten the lifespan, because removing this pain is seen as the most important thing. In many conditions merely being alive is agony and no effective treatment is available. Therefore medical professionals should be allowed to perform euthanasia as a means of ending this suffering.
Religion should not enter into this debate.
Suffering on earth is nothing to the suffering people will receive if they commit murder on this earth.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Right to choose
Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by the fact that suicide is legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives unaided. Legalising euthanasia would redress this balance.
Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime.
Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path, where they live, whether to bear children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide for themselves whether they die in a hospital or in their own home? Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off dead or alive? Their disease makes them so crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. A quote from The Independent in March 2002 stated that “So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions”. Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary restraints on human rights are strongly discouraged.
The right to choose is not something which our legal system has "accepted" we all have. This is far from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable offence – it is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of society.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Resources
Long term palliative care for the terminally ill is a huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources. Why waste these precious resources on someone who has expressed a desire to die, when they could be improving the life of someone who wants to live?
Draw the line at people that express desire to die. No one is suggesting forcing old people to die.
Where would we draw the line? Does this mean that we should allow people who are feeling suicidal to die? Depression is a dreadful illness and sufferers could argue that they too have a right to end their pain.
I think that to describe palliative care as a "huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources" is rather harsh! I’m not sure that families of the terminally ill would agree with you there. Again, I have to ask where you would draw the line. Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their lives anyway?
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Relatives spared the agony of watching their loved one die
A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste away, appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs, having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Those suffering with Huntington’s Disease develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational thought and poor concentration. Involuntary movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a shadow of their former self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a mother, father, brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last wish.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Sanctity of life
This is a misunderstanding of the moral law on killing, and of the legal system.
In moral terms, taking the life of another human being is unjust not due to the simple act of providing the drug overdose or firing the gun, but rather due to the unwarranted nature of the act: that is, murder is wrong when it is an act which ignores the will of the party upon whom the action in inflicted. In the case of euthanasia, the assistant is acting in accordance with the will of the patient, and since their actions do not infringe upon the free choice of the patient their act can not be seen as lying within the bracket of the same "moral absolute" as simple murder is.
In fact, one could see euthanasia both legally and morally as an act which fits entirely neatly into our sense of right and wrong. When suicide was decriminalised, it was done so on a recognition that the wider principle of autonomy was desirable, and that the state has no place to prosecute individuals who commit such an act: it was a legal act which recognised the limits of the state when an individual takes actions which do not have third party harms.
However, with voluntary assisted euthanasia still illegal, a situation has arisen in which terminally ill patients or those with severely limited physical capacity are unable to enact upon their legally unrestricted rights, effectively making them second class citizens. When such an individual is assisted in committing suicide, this is simply an empowerment of the rights which they are afforded but are unable to practically use themselves. The fact that another individual is involved does not make this a new moral action, nor should it change the legal approach to the action.
Indeed, such perspectives are becoming more widely accepted within our legal system, with a series of judges dismissing cases on assisted suicide.
Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human being. This principle must be safeguarded by law, as moral absolutes of this kind are necessary for a functioning legal system.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
The Law Has Not Advocated A Right to Choose
Suicide and voluntary assisted euthanasia should not require the general opinion of society in order to be allowable actions. The question upon which this debate ultimately rests is that of how far the state may intrude upon the liberty or individual choice of a citizen. In this case, one can point to a lack of tangible harms to others as a good reason why the state should not restrict our liberty.
Even if suicide was only decriminalised as a legal technicality, or if many people don’t believe it should be legal, there is no reason to restrict the ability of certain people to choose death simply because they are physically unable to do so themselves.
In contrast to what one of the arguments for say, the Right to Choose to die is not something which society has accepted we all have. This is far from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is an unpunishable offence – it is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of society.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Making the decision for yourself, or others?
Whatever their reasons, they should be allowed to do as they see fit. It is their life and they have the right to choose how and when it ends.
The problem that I have always had with euthanasia is that terminally ill patients may choose to die through feelings of guilt. They may feel guilty about the burden that they are putting on their families and choose to die for this reason alone.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Voluntary Euthanasia gives doctors too much power
Harold Shipman committed his crimes when euthanasia was illegal, which illustrates that psychopaths can commit crimes whatever the legal situation. Legalising euthanasia would have no effect on the 0.000001% of society who do this sort of thing.
In countries where euthanasia is currently legal, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, strict legal guidelines are in place to ensure that the process does not include such problems. All patients who request euthanasia require the diagnoses of at least two doctors to verify the terminal nature of their illness, and undergo psychological examination by these doctors and often other experts to examine the reasons for their choice. It is not a situation of "Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die?"; it is one of two medical professionals deciding whether the legal parameters allow them to enact the patient’s wishes.
It is worth noting that, at the moment, doctors can effectively use euthanasia anyway. Firstly, under the "doctrine of double effect", a doctor is allowed to give a patient, upon their request, a dose of painkilling medication which as a secondary effect speeds up the death of the patient. Secondly, all patients have both the right to refuse treatment, and the ability to make a "living will", which doctors are compelled to consider if the patient is unable to express their wishes during illness.
The prestigious position of doctors could quite easily be abused if euthanasia were to become legalised. A prime example of this would be the late Dr Harold Shipman, who killed between 215 and 260 elderly women. Vulnerable, ill people trust their doctor and if he confidently suggested a course of action, it could be hard to resist. A patient and his family would generally decide in favour of euthanasia according to the details fed to them by their doctor. These details may not even be well founded: diagnoses can be mistaken and new treatment developed which the doctor does not know about. Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die? On the contrary, the majority of doctors would make well-informed, responsible and correct decisions, but for those few like Harold Shipman, they can get away with murder, undetected, for 23 years.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE DECRIMINALISED?
Palliative care is available to avoid suffering
It is not a question of what patients deserve. It is a question of what patients desire.
Palliative care does indeed create a more comfortable death, but only when death eventually comes. Many patients feel that their illness has reached a point where life is not worth living, or are comfortable enough psychologically to accept that death is imminent and so choose to die then.