Law

The very controversial debate over euthanasia has been around for several years. However, the lines that define this topic are often criticised and misunderstood. If a man chooses to give up living because of a deadly illness, it is his decision. Some doctors feel that helping patients like this man is an ethical and noble duty that they must follow. On the other hand, there are those who contend that suicide is regarded as a permanent solution to a temporary crisis. People who suffer from depression often see euthanasia as a way of escape. Furthermore, many religious advocates condemn the act of killing innocent people because of immorality. They believe that it is murder in the eyes of God. These are but few of the issues that surround the topic of euthanasia.

Euthanasia means ending the life of another individual who is suffering from a deadly illness or an incurable disease. This act can be done through lethal injection or suspension of treatment that the patient is receiving (Dozer, Harrah, and Blausey n.d. 2-3). The word euthanasia or mercy killing originated from the Greek word eu thantos which means gentle death (Seshat 2009). This process of dying through the aid or help of others can either be passive or active, voluntary or non-voluntary (Seshat 2009).  Active euthanasia happens when the doctors or any other person will do something in order to cause the death of the patient. In this situation, the doctors take an action for the patient to die. On the other hand, passive euthanasia happens when the patient dies because the doctors did not do what they needed to do in order to keep the patients life. Here, the doctors let the patients die (BBC 2010).

The main argument of those in favour of euthanasia is that the patient is suffering from excruciating pain. The medical technology is so advanced today that a patient diagnosed to be terminally-ill can continue living for a number of months or even years. However, many patients have been asking for life-ending procedures because they can no longer bear the pain and the loss of their quality of life. There are many diseases that ultimately destroy the patients quality of life and leave them generally dependent on machines for their survival. Pro-euthanasia groups also contend that mercy killing is a personal choice that everyone has a right to exercise. Dying is an inevitable event and many people believe that men are at liberty to choose to die with dignity. Ending ones life is a private choice that society has no right to interfere with. Furthermore, many also argue that just as people have a right to stay alive, they must also have a right to stop living. There are many medical situations where the attempts to cure and keep the patients alive are not wise and compassionate (Euthanasia.com 2010). It is inhumane to force these people to continue living because of law and morality. However, arguing against euthanasia is easier said than done because those people who use their minds to formulate rebuttals in favour of the act do not know what it feels like to live life everyday but not living it at all.

Euthanasia is a widely known topic that many philosophers, debaters, and laymen comment on. Among the theoreticians that gave their perspective on mercy killing are the utilitarians. Utilitarianism pertains to a group of ethical theories that judge whether or not the acts, choices, and decisions are right or wrong. They believe in promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism involves the study of specific situations and their immediate consequences, and the determination of the correct action is determined based on the individual circumstances in order to achieve the greatest good for the benefit of the many. This point of view is often associated with Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and many more theologians (Frey 2010). Jeremy Bentham is of the view that the essence of morality is not the obedience to God but the promotion of the greatest joy that the creatures of the earth may experience. What every person must do is to calculate how his or her actions affect other people. According to Bentham, morality does not deal with matters that please God, and neither is it a matter of serious adherence to the rules of abstract. He said that morality is but an attempt to bring as much happiness in the world as possible. This belief supports the statement that every individual must ask what the best course of conduct will lead to the promotion of the greatest amount of happiness for everyone that will be affected. Morality dictates that all must do their best with this perspective in mind (Cavalier, Mellon, and Ess n.d.)

It is undeniable that Christianity is the most prevalent religion in the world, and it is their belief that intentionally ending the lives of innocent people will never be right. The utilitarians take a different approach by asking first the questions as to what actions will create a balance of happiness over unhappiness for all those who are concerned. After carefully studying the facts involved, the utilitarians are of the view that euthanasia may be deemed morally right in some instances. In a logical perspective, the morally right thing to do is the act that would bring a great deal of balance of happiness over unhappiness. On certain occasions, the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness may be achieved by euthanasia. Therefore, on some occasions, euthanasia may be morally right (Quinn 2003 1).

The theory of natural law pertains to the moral absolutes which must never be transgressed regardless of the situation. According to the believers of this law, the end will never justify the means because there can be no amount of pain that will justify any act of evil. One of the main precepts of this law is protecting and preserving the lives of the innocent, and as such, one can conclude that the secondary precept of this law is the absolute moral rule that no person can ever take the life of another. Based on the perspective of the natural law, euthanasia is wrong because no matter what a person does, it is still murder.

In the context of liberalism, John Stuart Mill reasons that one cannot limit or prohibit the actions of another just because they are immoral and harmful to that person.  Mill adapted a theory which includes both the quality and the quantity of both the pleasure and pain that would result thereto. He may have supported the granting of euthanasia in case of a person suffering from Alzheimers disease who has already lost his mental functions. The utilitarians of today argue that people do not simply value pleasure. If an individual was suffering from excruciating pain that takes away his dignity, it could be a legitimate reason for allowing euthanasia (Dziewas, Kellinghaus, and Soros 2003 211).

People who strongly disagree about euthanasia contend that it must not be considered as an alternative for terminally ill people because there are many medical ways today to help minimize and control pain. Furthermore, euthanasia is considered as a sin in the eyes of the Christians. It is morally and ethically wrong to condone these practices because it is nothing less than killing and it lessens the value of life. Modern technology has brought about medical advances that enable doctors to go to great lengths that were impossible to be accomplished years ago. Hence, condoning euthanasia will reset these medical accomplishments and it will reduce the physicians of today to mere administrators of death.

There is a complex and dynamic relationship between law, morality, and the controversy between the two pertaining to euthanasia. Laws are enforced because of the recognized and accepted processes while morality is voluntary because it is up to the dictates of ones own conscience. Morality, which is based on the concepts of what right and wrong is about, may be moulded because of the religious dogmas. There are acts that are recognised as wrong because of the dictates of morality, but these acts are not necessarily deemed illegal in the eyes of the law. In England, the present state of the law makes euthanasia illegal because a man cannot consent to his own death through another, but in Netherlands, active euthanasia is allowed for as long as it is the patients persistent and conscious request. Furthermore, both the doctors and the patients must agree that the suffering is beyond relief, and another doctor must agree with the decision (Mothersole and Ridley 2000 26-28).

According to a former Law Lord named Patrick Devlin, consent is not a valid defence against euthanasia because the society does not have any right to enforce morals on a legal basis. However, Lord Devlins ideas were opposed by a former professor of jurisprudence in Oxford named Hart. He reasons that the the decision why euthanasia must not be left to the individuals is not because of the societys views on morality but because people have a tendency to harm themselves. His main concern is that wrong decisions may be made because of their distrust of consent because consent may be given by a person without so much of a reflection or contemplation of the consequences that may arise by virtue of such decision (Pierce 1975 205).

Euthanasia and the principles related to it are continuously being argued upon. Despite the prohibitions, debates, and legislative acts, this matter remains unsettled. In making up his mind about being for or against euthanasia, a man must ask himself as to where he should draw the line. By weighing the pros and cons, I am persuaded to lean towards the argument in favour of mercy killing. Since time immemorial, dying has been perceived as fearsome enough as it is, and it does not change no matter how medically advanced the world becomes. The top priority must be relieving the patients of their pain, and it can be done by allowing them to die in peace. There can be no deeper personal choice that is closer to the very core of personal liberty than the choice which a dying patient makes in order to put an end to his or her suffering.