Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The very core of the anti-euthanasia position can be summarised with the idea
that doctors simply shouldnt have the power over deciding whether or not
somebody should die. This view is clearly expressed in the argument: Voluntary
euthanasia inevitably leads to involuntary euthanasia. If euthanasia gets
legalised, it then gives rise to the possibility of doctors making the decision for
patients, and potentially getting away with it. In countries where euthanasia is
legal, this is not an unknown occurrence. A commonly cited country is the
Netherlands. Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands since the 70s, and
come 1991 the first official governmental study of the practice was published,
titled the Remmelink Report. It revealed that out of 8681 patients that received
the procedure over the last couple of decades, 5981 of them died without proper
consent.
I was quite shocked by this statistic, and I dont think its too emotive of me to
say that. However what it also caused me to question was - if within a system of
euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia is a real threat to patients, what is the antieuthanasia solution to the demand/request of euthanasia?
Well its along the lines of
Voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because alternative treatments exist.
One argument is that we often interpret the issue of Euthanasia as either or,
there being only two options, with those being leaving a patient to suffer in
their final days, or put them out of their misery via euthanasia. This argument
proposes that theres a third option, and thats palliative care, which is where
doctors and nurses make an effort to make a patients last days peaceful through
thorough care and medication. It can be supplied through a hospice and theres
also home care. It does not intent to extend or shortening a persons lifespan,
but to make their final days easier.
It is further argued that virtually all pain experienced by a suffering patient can
be relived due to old and recent developments in medicine, and therefore
euthanasia is viewed as an unnecessary procedure, since typically its in demand
from those that are suffering. It is acknowledged that obviously there are cases
where people dont receive this care, but their solution still stands as to
encourage further recognition and use of this type of care rather than making
the leap to euthanasia. A point is also made that in the Netherlands, as I touched
on before, they tend to have less of these hospice/palliative care facilities, and
theres a lot of public support for it. However in the UK where hospice facilities
are plentiful, euthanasia remains illegal. What they imply from this is that
societies where theres more available palliative care, opinion shifts against
euthanasia and if we were to give this idea more of a chance, ours would and
should to.
So as we can see from these two arguments, as easy as it is to interpret the antieuthanasia movement as unethical, selfish, you name it, the reality is its just a
Conclusions?
I feel its quite easy to misjudge the opposing side of euthanasia, because when
we look at it as a black and white question should somebody be able to end
their lives? to answer no really makes someone look like an asshole.
Questions
Assisted suicide can lead to a maximum of a 5 year prison sentence.
http://www.life.org.nz
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia
http://exitinternational.net/about-exit/history/
http://www.righttolife.com.au/index.php/life-issues/euthanasia
http://dwdnsw.org.au/an-australian-timeline-1/
http://noeuthanasia.org.au/
http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/about/
http://www.statisticbrain.com/euthanasia-statistics/ [retrieved 26 March]