Euthanasia

Introduction

We are all familiar with euthanasia in circumstances where people want to end their lives when faced with a terminal or incurable diseases in order to relieve themselves of their suffering. In these cases the people who die ask for euthanasia. However there are cases where people cannot make such requests. But how about people with no reasonable excuses who wish to commit a suicide and would like to be assisted with this?

This issue has been at the centre of the very heated debates since the mid of 1800s.

Defining Euthanasia

Before discussing the problem itself, of critical importance, in my opinion, is how we define euthanasia.  First time in medical context euthanasia was used by an English philosopher and jurist Francis Bacon in the seventeenth century. He referred to an easy, painless, happy death, which was a physicians' responsibility to relieve the body's sufferings. Nowadays one of the definitions says, euthanasia is "painless inducement of a quick death". However some people argue this definition, as it leaves open a number of possible actions, could not be seen as euthanasia. For example in a case where a person kills another, painlessly but with this death he or she gains benefits (i.e. inheritance, etc).

There is another situation, such as an accidental death which is quick and painless but not intentional. According to oxford English dictionary euthanasia is "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma", where "suffering" is a vital condition. However this approach to define euthanasia has also counterexamples such as a killing of person suffering from a fatal or an incurable disease, where personal gain is suspected. The third, wider, definition incorporates intentionality and says - "the death must be intentional rather than accidental, with the motive to relieve suffering" (euthanasia definition, euthanasia.com) Referring to this definition, some people argue that the motives must be in the best interest of person, who expresses intention to end his/her life. And at the same time a person who performs euthanasia must not benefit from it. Thus as we can see, the definition of euthanasia must encompass four main points:

·         death must result from intention of one person to kill another person, who terminally or incurable ill;

·         the means must be painless and quick;

·         the "killer" must be motivated only by the best interest of person who dies.

Types of Euthanasia

Next part of definition arises many debates around itself and concerns "voluntarily". There are three types of euthanasia:

·         voluntary, when actions are conducted with the consent or after request of the patient;

·         non-voluntary - when procedures are conducted but the consents of the patients are unavailable, because of mental or deep-physical illnesses. For instance in a case of a child euthanasia or when the person is in a coma;

·         involuntary - occurs when actions are performed against the will of the patients who are able to give reasonable consents, (they do not choose to die) or where not asked.

Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive and active types.

The passive type incorporates withholding of vital treatments such as antibiotics, nutrients necessary for the support of life. The active euthanasia is a cause of the usage of lethal substance, such as injections.

Issues around Euthanasia

One more problem that arouse around euthanasia is so called "the doctrine of double effect". This states that "bad results can be morally accepted if they are the site effects of good actions". This principle is used to justify the situations when a doctor gives the drugs to a patient in order to relieve symptoms even though they know such actions may shorten the patient's life. Very often such a drug is morphine.

 But this is usually when reasonable doses of drugs are uncounted, because doctors have not the aim to kill his patients. The bad result of the patient's death is a site effect of the good result when reducing the patient's pain. But what if the dose was fatal (much larger than it needs to relieve pain) and who can estimate the dose for every patient separately?

People who are against euthanasia claim that it weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life. In other words, by the accepting euthanasia the society accepts that lives of the disabled or sick worth less than others. They insist that it is too difficult to define and separate when it is done in a person's best interest or not, and the defining borders are too subtle and very often overlap.

Another group of reasons is concerning the very government, where euthanasia may be a useful weapon to silence the dissentients as well as became a cost effective way to treat the terminally ill.

The main opposed power in this issue is the religion. Many religions are against euthanasia. They believe a human life belongs to God, because it was given by Lord, hence only the creator can take it away. Another explanation of religion rejecting euthanasia is attitude to suffering, where it says that endurance is a God's plant to purify soul of a sufferer a and his/her relatives, as a way to enter the Heaven.

Pro- euthanasia activists often point to the countries such as Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and state of Oregon in the US where euthanasia is legal today. On the other hand some media reports reveal that elderly people in these countries carry cards or certified letters saying they do not want to be euthanized, for a fear it would be carried out against their will.

Conclusion

Although we all understand that it is not just the pain and suffering the incurable and terminally ill individuals have to endure, but also the pain and suffering of their friends and families that should be taken into a consideration. However the border between euthanasia and murder is very subtle and unclear that sometimes we cannot even define what is what.