Euthanasia

Euthanasia

The controversy in 2005 about Terri Schiavo and her husband's attempts to remove her life sustaining treatment sparked not only a legal battle, but a worldwide deliberation. The 41-year-old woman was brain-damaged and after three years was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Despite her statements that she would not wish to be kept alive by a machine and her husband's petitions to take out the feeding tube, her family refused to pull the plug in hopes that she would eventually reawake. People reviled her treatment as euthanasia Ð'- ending the life of a person suffering from a terminal or incurable condition. Terri Schiavo's case caught the attention of the public and was a catalyst of debate. In correspondence of Michael

Schiavo's viewpoint, Euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalized when patients are terminally ill, suffering from pain, have a strong death wish and proper justification for it.

Voluntary euthanasia is defined as the act of ending the life of a person suffering from a terminal or incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. Therefore, the person may no longer wish to live, and only then should euthanasia be justifiable.

Euthanasia may either be direct or indirect. Indirect euthanasia is when a patient takes the final step to end their own life. Direct euthanasia usually involves doctors aiding the patient in taking the final step. There are three types of direct euthanasia Ð'- voluntary, involuntary, and involuntary. Nonvoluntary euthanasia is the killing of a person without their own approval or their surrogate's knowledge. Involuntary is the type that most people are worried about. Involuntary euthanasia appeared in Hitler's Germany as a means of murder. The person is euthanized even after they or their surrogate refuses. Many people seem to think that if voluntary euthanasia is legalized, it will escalate to the point that involuntary euthanasia will also be acceptable. However, this theory has been proven inaccurate by van der Maas, et al. (1991), and van der Wal, et al. Voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia are two entirely separate issues that should not be so quickly fused into one.

Voluntary euthanasia is only thought of as suitable if five rules apply to the patient. First the patient has to be suffering from a terminal disease, which means he or she is in the final stages of a fatal disease. Secondly, he or she is incapable of suicide without assistance. Thirdly, the patient is going through medical treatment or care but doesn't or no longer benefits from it. Fourthly, the patient should be suffering from overwhelming pain or whose life has become a burden and therefore has to depend on others. Fifthly, with the knowledge of all of the above, he or she has to have a competent death wish. These five conditions are restraining enough so as to ensure that not just anyone can qualify for euthanasia. (Young)

If a patient is terminal and medical care or treatment is no longer working, then he or she should not have to endure anymore suffering (Lane). Euthanasia is described as a "quiet, painless death" or a "mercy killing", and for a doctor to refuse a request from a patient would be inappropriate (Marker). Many patients do not have the means to sustain their medical treatment or health coverage, as it is often expensive. Others may not wish to receive medical treatment, and prefer to die in their own way, as opposed to filling their bodies with drugs everyday to relieve themselves of their suffering. Along with these drugs come side effects that a patient does not wish to experience (Young). Not only is denying these terminal patients the right to end their lives unjust and viewed as murder, but the patient with a credible death wish should not be forced to stay alive while enduring intolerable pain (Lane, ITK).

Refusing to listen to a patient's wishes is cruel and unethical; especially which they in pain. The bottom line is that we should respect their autonomy, so long as it does not cause harm to others (Young). For many people, their death and timing of their life is an important decision that they feel they should be able to have control over. Although under the Supreme Court laws, there is no such thing as a "right to die", morally, people have a right to make crucial choices and take responsibility in their own lives (Young). Moreover, such decisions that involve death are personal and not relating to the country's business; and the refusal of a patient's wishes is opposing to the law (Marzilli, ITK). Neither the law nor medical ethics requires that everything possible must be done to keep a person alive, so why does the law insist that euthanasia is unnecessary? Although the level of medical technology has risen, there are still numerous issues such as side effects and the high costs of medicines (ITK). After a certain point, medical treatment is no longer helpful, and a person may no longer be able to afford the pricey treatment. The quality of their life might have deteriorated; for example, in progressive illnesses such as ALS, Huntington's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, AIDS, Alzheimer's,