Death is a certainty in life and sparks contentious discussions on the best approach, especially for people with terminal illnesses. There are four possible choices in this scenario: death occurring naturally as a result of the disease; doctors performing active euthanasia by intentionally administering lethal injections; physicians aiding patients in ending their own lives through prescribing fatal drug dosages; or passive euthanasia involving the withholding of life-sustaining treatments like ventilators or antibiotics.
The debate surrounding euthanasia includes three types: passive, active, and physician-assisted. While passive euthanasia is generally accepted, active euthanasia and physician-assisted euthanasia are not. Andrew Bell points out the ethical boundary between acknowledging human life’s finiteness and doctors becoming executioners (Bernards 50). Those opposed to active euthanasia argue that it lacks proper oversight and regulation, leading to a high risk of abuse (Bernards 72). Euthanasia has the potential to be misused as an escape from financial burdens or doctor misdiagnoses. Loopholes will inevitably emerge and there is a significant risk of exploitation. Another argument against active euthanasia relates to medical errors. Doctors often make misdiagnoses, as mentioned in medical textbooks that feature cases where one condition is frequently mistaken for another. Allowing active euthanasia could worsen these problems if Dr.
According to X, Patient Y was given a prognosis of having Z months left to live. Consequently, Patient X underwent euthanasia. If active euthanasia were to occur, Dr. X would not only be susceptible to a typical malpractice lawsuit but also hold the responsibility for causing his patient’s death. Another argument against active euthanasia relates to the relationships among doctors, patients, and hospitals. Many individuals tend to postpone seeking medical attention, convincing themselves that their condition is not critical. It seems that virtually every family has at least one member who strongly avoids hospitals. Let us take a moment and imagine the consequences if euthanasia were legally allowed.
Fear of hospitals would become ridiculous. Patients who are informed about their limited time remaining may avoid seeking a second opinion to prevent contemplating euthanasia. The final argument against active euthanasia is that doctors should not be responsible for killing. In 1961, Percy Bridgman took his own life instead of battling cancer. In his suicide note, he expressed, “It is not decent for Society to make a man do this to himself” (Suicidology Online). The logical question arising from this statement would be, “Then who should Society consider it decent to make ‘do this’? Certainly not doctors! The professionals sought out for healing and assistance? Psychological difficulties in doctors are not uncommon, even without euthanasia. Losing a patient is never easy, regardless of the circumstances. Now, imagine if active euthanasia was permitted.
The psychological problems that can arise, such as PTSD and severe depression, can be just as unbearable as a terminal illness (Bernards, 73). The argument against physician assisted suicide is not simple because it has numerous benefits. One benefit is that the potential for abuse significantly decreases (Levine 85). The patient must willingly choose to undergo the procedure since he or she is the one carrying it out. Another benefit is the choice it offers to doctors. Doctors who opt to provide this procedure are not actively causing anyone’s death; they are simply presenting a choice while leaving the moral dilemma up to the patient. However, there are also drawbacks, including the fact that doctors, including those involved in active euthanasia, may face the difficult decision of choosing between their moral belief in not killing and losing patients.
Is it difficult to imagine that terminal patients may gravitate towards the oncologist who can provide them with definitive pain relief? Doctors should not have to engage in that struggle. No one should have to endure suffering for their beliefs. Additionally, there is genuinely no necessity for it. If someone genuinely did not desire to fight a futile battle, they would not necessarily require the assistance of a physician. Nowadays, thanks to the internet, with just a few clicks, one can easily discover numerous methods to peacefully escape pain.
In the 1980s, a British version of the Hemlock Society published guides on painless suicide methods (Bernards 26). Currently, they offer similar guides to eligible individuals (The EXIT Euthanasia Blog). The key point is that lack of access to a doctor does not prevent people from ending their own lives or obtaining a prescription for suicide. Another important argument is the slippery slope scenario: legalizing physician-assisted suicide may lead to patient-rights groups opposing self-harm. These groups could argue against society allowing patients to kill themselves, potentially pressuring doctors to carry out such acts. Thus, active euthanasia remains an issue that cannot be permitted. One might argue that these arguments overly focus on doctors, but in reality, assisted suicide and euthanasia involve multiple parties including the family.
The discussion surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide involves considering the decisions and outcomes faced by both the dying individual and the doctor. These actions require a different approach than suicide itself. The societal acceptance of suicide when faced with imminent death is not the focus of debate; instead, it centers on whether doctors should have the choice, obligation, or coercion to alleviate suffering. Moreover, how euthanasia is described—whether passive, active, or physician-assisted—depends on the level of involvement from the doctor in causing death (Levine 84). Passive euthanasia is deemed acceptable because life naturally comes to an end (Bernards 50), so actively prolonging life solely for the sake of doing so is unnecessary. It’s important to recognize that choosing necessary or desired treatments is a fundamental right. Additionally, passive euthanasia is justified as it distinguishes how patients die: through natural means rather than being caused intentionally by medication or any other factor. Neither patients nor doctors intentionally cause harm.
Euthanasia, originating from the Greek words ‘eu’ (meaning good or well) and ‘thanatos’ (meaning death), gives priority to the patient’s needs rather than the doctor’s. Its fundamental belief is that it would be in the patient’s best interest to accept whatever follows after death. Nevertheless, doctors should not be held responsible for causing death. Requesting active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide essentially amounts to asking someone to commit murder. In contrast, passive euthanasia involves allowing a natural death. While active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are considered unacceptable, passive euthanasia is morally acceptable.
