The right to life- over-protected?

The right to life is guaranteed and protected by law and it applies to everyone.

Every person has the right to life and it is against the law for someone to violate

this fundamental right. Still, assisted suicide is a delicate matter whereas it is

regarded as violating the right to life, to health and self-determination.

Going back to Ancient Greece, the word “euthanasia” comes from “eu” (which

means good) and “thanatos” (death). Therefore, euthanasia is rather defined as

a painless death. Even so, society blames it and refuses to accept the fact that in

certain situations, euthanasia is the best solution.

The case of Diane Pretty raised awareness of the issue of euthanasia in today’s

society. Diane Pretty, as many other people, was suffering from a terminal illness

and had no hope of recovery. She repeatedly asked the judges to grant her

husband permission to help her in the process of dying and they refused to do

so. She relied on the European Convention of Human Rights, claiming that hers

were infringed. Article 3 of the Human Rights Act prohibits the use of torture and

inhuman treatment towards anyone. However, exposing a terminally ill person to

a long, exhausting trial would surely exacerbate their existing condition and

therefore, lead to human degradation, which would be in violation of the 3rd

article of the Human Rights Act. She also based her case on Article 8, which

states that everyone is entitled to respect towards their private and family life,

their homes and correspondence. Her case was rejected on the grounds that the

restrictions imposed on her were justified under public law.

Allowing the terminally ill to die in their preferred way only helps them keep their

human dignity and feel more comfortable with the idea of dying and it would
prevent discrimination against those who do not have the means to travel

abroad to die due to their income.

In the UK, the struggle to change the current law regarding assisted suicide has

been getting more intense over the past few years and it peaked with Debbie

Purdy’s case. The woman who has been suffering from MS has significantly

contributed to changing the law so that assisted suicide will no longer be

prosecuted as easily as before. Mrs Purdy based her arguments on Article 2 of

the European Convention of Human Rights, claiming that the right to life should

also enable her to choose her death. As a response to her claim, the court held

that the right to life is not capable of including the right to self-determination and

the right to death (in order to prevent abuse).

The main reasons for which euthanasia and assisted dying are being disregarded

are ethical ones. Most people disagree with it for religious reasons. All Christian

churches are against it and they influence people’s opinions. The sanctity of life

seems to be a good reason to oppose it, but very few people actually think of the

fact that God is not in favour of human degradation and suffering. Furthermore,

when Jesus was crucified, it is assumed that along with the vinegar the Roman

soldiers put on his wound, they also used an Opium compound (soluble only in

liquids like vinegar) to relieve some of his pain. In addition to that, illnesses do

not discriminate against religions and people get sick regardless of their religion.

When in great pain, a Christian should not be treated differently than a Muslim,

Indian, Buddhist or any other person because pain doesn’t take that into

consideration. Other people are against it because they believe medicine makes

progress every day and if assisted dying was legalised, people would abuse it.

The right to life is protected so much by churches, by the law and by people that

at some point it becomes over-protected and infringes the right to self

determination (for those who are mentally capable of deciding for themselves).

Generally, people who suffer from terminal illnesses can decide to take their own

lives and that is not against the law, whereas if they do succeed, no one can hold

them responsible for their action. Still, some people suffer from illnesses that do

not allow them to move and without movement, they cannot commit suicide.

However, because their pain is unbearable, they seek help from their loved ones

and as soon as they realize their family members might be prosecuted for

helping them, they start worrying and thinking that they have become a burden

and the quality of their lives continuously decreases until they have no dignity

left.

For those people, organisations like “Dignity in Dying” have been founded. The

number of people supporting these organisations increases every year, as people

become more open to the idea of assisted suicide. They claim that enforced

suffering is immoral and it should not be allowed. Their fight for changing the law

is also supported by the fact that legalising assisted suicide would create less

concern amongst the terminally ill patients and they would be able to live longer.

Mrs Purdy highlighted the idea that if her husband would be prosecuted if he

helped her, she would travel abroad while she can still travel on her own and

that would mean ending her life sooner than it is necessary. Furthermore,

changing the law and allowing assisted dying with the help of a doctor would

decrease the number of failed suicides. It is also important for people to

understand that their judgments of what the value of life of another is are not

the same with the judgments of the person in question and we cannot decide

how strong their feelings are.

Even though some people oppose assisted dying due to their religious or moral

beliefs, 70% are in favour of changing the law whereas they consider that even

the best palliative treatments cannot provide dignity in dying.

As assisted dying is such a complex subject, it creates a relation between law,

religion and medicine. Elizabeth Wicks tried to analyse this connection between

the three domains in her article “Law, religion and medicine: legislating on birth

and death in a Christian state” in November 2009. In her article, Mrs Wicks not

only states the arguments in favour of changing the law, but she also presents

the arguments in favour of keeping the current law. One of the arguments she

states is the sanctity of life, closely followed by the prevention of abuse coming

from medical staff and family members. She also suggests the fact that if the law

was more relaxed with regard to this delicate issue, more terminally ill patients

would develop a duty to die if they feel they have become a burden to those

around them. Mrs Wicks also presents the argument according to which assisted

dying is actively killing and should be treated as such. Furthermore, from a

medical point of view, progress is made every day and to support this argument,

the new MS treatment (developed in February 2010) is used as an example by

those who are against legalising assisted dying.

In conclusion, assisted suicide should be lawful whereas it would help set a

balance between allowing patient self determination and protecting the

vulnerable. In order to do so, safeguards like living wills, special tribunals and

following the model provided by other countries where this is legal should be

introduced. In the end, it is the freedom of choice that makes us feel alive and

provides us with the will to live.

Alexandra Pop