Life Humans and other animals’ behavior In life Include the Instinctive avoidance of feeling pain that is any kind of pain that may impair or deteriorate quality of life. If a human being cannot avoid his or her own suffering caused by incurable disease, the sufferer cannot continue functioning in life. The dignity of a person is threatened as one is condemned to go through unbearable and incomprehension pain. The issue arises when a physician, whose task is to sustain life as long as possible, is confronted with a person’s request for assistance In terminating his or her life.
The conflict Lies within the Illegal status of assisted death In most countries. The confrontation with Euthanasia could occur unexpectedly in anyone’s life. Diseases are diagnosed and accidents happen daily with more or less adverse outcomes; such calamities are likely to arouse some thought about assisted dying or about Euthanasia which is the widely used term. Euthanasia leads to many questions on whether it Is a valid option for humanity to Improve their quality of life by avoiding prolonged pain. Euthanasia literally translated form Greek means “good death”.
The core of euthanasia is the acceptance of one’s own death (Eely 3). In medical terms euthanasia is defined as the intentional termination of life requested by the individual in order to enable a painless and eased passage into death. A widely distinguished type of euthanasia is assisted suicide. The difference is understood in the fact that the individual requesting assisted death is provided with a lethal drug that will be consumed by the Individual autonomously Instead of having the physician Inject the legal drug (Eely 8).
Furthermore, euthanasia Is usually divided into active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is practiced directly by a physician using medication to anticipate death. Executing euthanasia passively is the act of refusing to make use of life sustaining treatment or to retain the commencement of life sustaining treatment, such as a respirator. Active and Passive euthanasia are determined by the physician’s act of performing It. Voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are determined by the patient’s behavior which Is defined by decision-making in regards to euthanasia.
Voluntary Euthanasia is the conscious decision made by a mentally competent patient to end his or her life. Euthanasia regarded as non-voluntary is implemented without any explicit request from the patient or if the request comes from an incompetent patient (Béchamel, 151-152). Ethical and medical implications will be explored of voluntary active and passive Euthanasia as well as the views of proponents and opponents. Historically, the birth of the debate on assisted death Is rooted to Greek-Roman Antiquity. Many Greeks and Romans wished for painless death which was realized by physicians.
The establishment of the Hippocratic Oath in ancient Greece lead to the forbearance of euthanasia performed by a doctor. Physicians were not allowed to participate in assisted death due to their duty to sustain life as long as possible. However, the possible use off legal drug to ease death could not be ruled out. In addition, the regarding one’s own death was considered an essential value of life by philosophers in antique times (Ponderosa 1422). As long as life is Joyful and pleasant, it is worth living. If life loses its value and sense, it is up to the individual “to return whence you came” (CTD. In Eely, 4).
However, according to Aristotle, suicide is a vice and cannot be tolerated as it turns against human virtues (Ponderosa, 1423). In Christianity, suicide was considered to be on par with murder. Based on the belief that God is the creator of human life and Jesus conveying, which concluded that all human life is as equal and valuable; the act of hastening death was considered against Christian values (1423). In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, philosophers provided different attitudes about Euthanasia. The philosopher Francis Bacon, for example, viewed Euthanasia as a right of every human being.
Those who suffered from severe illness and pain had a right to request a death that would be as painless and calm as he death of Augustus Caesar. Bacon was also the first philosopher to make a distinction between religious Euthanasia as a good death characterized by a peaceful soul ready to exit life and Euthanasia as a good death which is painless and quick, mostly supported by a physician (1421). It is clear that Euthanasia as an ethical issue emerged in the early civilizations of human-kind and has been controversial since then.
As of today, there are seven legal systems that allow regulated Euthanasia. Since the Netherlands are the only Jurisdiction with the most data available for analysis, hey will serve as an example for practiced Euthanasia in a European country (Eely 1). In the Netherlands Euthanasia is performed intentionally as per a person’s request; thus, euthanasia is always voluntary and usually not performed on mentally incompetent patients. However, it may be performed on incompetent patients who signed a form of requested Euthanasia before reaching the state of incompetence (Boors-Leers 55).
The definition of Euthanasia in Dutch terms excludes the cancellation of diverse treatment methods that have become completely ineffective in a medical sense regardless of whether the illness is terminal or not. The termination of treatment depends on the decision between doctor and patient who evaluate positive effects and adverse effects of the continuing treatment. The decision of a competent patient to refuse to start or to continue a treatment falls under usual medical practices (Boors-Leers 55-56). Treating pain with high doses of morphine is not regarded as Euthanasia despite possible hastened death.
In the Netherlands, regulations on Euthanasia are based on the medial ethics of the Royal Dutch Medical Association (RADAR) that was released in 1936. These regulations are subject to change and thus, can be revised if necessary. In 1959, the RADAR stated that it is the doctor’s task to sustain life and that he cannot Judge the suffering of a patient. Interestingly, the RADAR does not distinguish assisted suicide from Euthanasia as both acts have the same intention which is to relieve suffering by hastening death (56-58).
A minority of doctors oppose euthanasia and they have a membership in the Dutch Doctors Association (DAD) that consists of 1000 members. The difference in the size of membership between the DAD and RADAR is striking as 25000 doctors are members of the RADAR. Eighty-eight percent of the doctors agree to reform Euthanasia compared to 8 percent who would not carry out this procedure. Professor Paul van deer Mass revealed a more detailed insight about how Euthanasia is handled and perceived by physicians in Holland. Out of 129,000 deaths per year, 1. 78 percent resulted from Euthanasia and 0. 3 percent from assisted suicide.
The majority of the general practitioners have practiced Euthanasia at least once; 83 percent of the patients who requested Euthanasia as assisted suicide were terminally ill (Boors-Leers 61-62). It is important to note that Dutch doctors hesitate to reactive Euthanasia unless they have done everything they could to reduce the patient’s suffering. Besides the data on frequency of practiced euthanasia, the study by Paul van deer Mass unveiled that Dutch doctors are among the best trained doctors in matters of providing all possible kinds of treatment to reduce requests for Euthanasia (Eely 63).
Dutch doctors are considered humane and sensitive for whom Euthanasia is a serious concern signifying loss of an individual’s life which leaves doctors in a sentimental state of mind (66). The feeling of “discomfort” is quite prevalent among Dutch physicians. Nevertheless, one doctor observed that the “duty of the doctor does not end even if there are no further treatment options to be offered” (CTD. In Eely 67). Although Euthanasia is considered normal medical practice under the right conditions in legal terms, it is not perceived as usual medical procedure by Dutch doctors (68).
The available option of Euthanasia for the Dutch contains a comforting effect. A patient does not have to fear to be abandoned by the doctor while going through severe suffering. Euthanasia as an available option creates the necessity for lose relationships between physician, patient and the patient’s family; hence, the of support, trust and care” are the result of possible Euthanasia in the Netherlands (CTD. In Eely 68). In Oregon, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is permitted by law. The regulations of PAS are established by the Death With Dignity Act (DADA) which was enforced in 1997.
PAS may be requested by a terminally ill patient who wants to maintain dignity by having control over the act of dying. The request has to be signed in the presence of two other individuals who have to affirm that the request is expressed consciously, linearity and is not subject to any coercion (Eely, 128-29). Surprisingly, the number of deaths caused by PAS is quite low in Oregon; in 2007 only 0. 16 percent of all deaths followed from Physician Assisted Suicide (132). The majority of the patients suffer from cancer which compromise 82 percent.
Ninety-nine percent of all patients requesting PAS are insured. The most stated reasons for PAS are lack of autonomy and lack of Joy in life followed by loss of dignity. More importantly, financial concerns were not significant reasons for PAS. Only 10. 7 percent went through the intermediate step of psychological evaluation (133). From a physician point of view, only half of the Oregonians physicians were supportive of DADA in 1999. The majority, consisting of 46 percent, were not willing to prescribe a lethal drug in contrast to 36 percent who agreed with prescribing a lethal drug.
If the prescribed lethal medication does not cause death but, for instance, a state of unconsciousness, the patient cannot receive an injection from a physician since Euthanasia is forbidden by law. In the Netherlands, the physician, who carries out PAS, remains responsible during the procedure. Hence, if the patient does not reach the status of being dead The ambiguity and uncertainty of reasons for requesting euthanasia in Holland practically does not exist. The requests of patients are not coerced by external forces like financial issues that may arise from unaffordable health care.
Not only is health insurance in the United States more expensive and more difficult to acquire, but the gap between the rich and the poor is much wider in the United States than in Holland (Batting 99, 101). The decision for sooner death in the U. S. Could likely be based on the patient’s financial situation. Since euthanasia would be the least expensive health care treatment, voluntary active euthanasia as the cheapest option would be an attractive and tempting choice (99). As a consequence, doubt about the voluntaries of euthanasia would be created.
Opponent attitudes toward euthanasia are divided into theological, philosophical and physician-based ethics. Since Roman Catholicism is a quite prevalent denomination in most nations, it is significant to comprehend the ground rules on which the strict refusal of active Euthanasia is built. Human life, according to Roman Catholicism, is “a gift of God’s eve” (CTD. In Large 36). If this gift of an innocent life is taken, it will always be an act against God. No one is to interfere with “God’s plan”.
Deliberately ending one’s own life is homicide opposed to God’s project. Suicide signifies unfaithfulness to oneself, neglect of one’s duties, and irresponsibility towards one’s society. However, suicide must be separated from sacrifice, for the acts have different motives and meanings (37). Despite Euthanasia’s purpose of eliminating suffering, it is stressed by the Vatican that euthanasia is the “killing of an innocent human being”; additionally, a errors requesting euthanasia commits a sin (38).
Because the painful suffering of a person is a process that reflects the suffering during crucifixion of Christ, it is meaningful to Christians to refuse the consumption of painkillers; however, the decent use of pain medication is acceptable as long as the person can maintain a state of “full consciousness for meeting with Christ” (CTD. In Large 39-40). The Lutheran church follows the key rules of Roman Catholicism (67, 68, 69). Lutheran consider euthanasia as an act against God’s will. The withdrawal of life-sustaining devices is permitted when death is imminent (69). Evangelicals regard Euthanasia as an offence against the role of God.
Those who practice Euthanasia compete with God’s role (101, 102). Generally, Baptist churches do not support Euthanasia either but accept the use of pain medications regardless of possible loss of consciousness (121). The Utilitarian perspective, which is not theologically influenced, provides philosophical arguments that go beyond the inalienable right to life because it is a gift from God. Peter Singer forms a Justification for the right to termination of life from a utilitarian perspective. To begin with, he does not acknowledge an inalienable right to life that cannot be refused (531).
Instead, he accepts the discretionary right which is optional because it can be accepted or rejected and reacquired by the individual (Fingers, 104-05). So, the discretionary right includes the right to life and its denial. The voluntary rejection of the right to life or the right to freedom does not make any sense unless it is Justifiable. A self-destructing decision such as the rejection of the right to life is Justifiable by a fatally ill person rather than by a person who, for example, Joins slavery which Singer uses as an example in his argumentation.
The difference between these two decisions lies instance, is an undesirable and unpleasant situation which becomes evident because the voluntary status of a slave will most probably be revoked and the choice made by the individual regretted. It is uncertain whether the choice for voluntary euthanasia is an unreasonable and a harmful choice because consequences like feelings of regret cannot be experienced by the individual because he or she reached death. As someone who becomes a slave voluntarily may regret his or her choice, so could someone who decides to end his or her life.
However, whether the voluntary decision for euthanasia is a mistake remains a speculation. Thus, the possibility that euthanasia is a relief for the patient cannot be completely excluded (532). If the decision is a mistake, it is not completely voluntary and is, for instance, affected by depression. However, it does not speak against voluntary Euthanasia because a requirement to undergo a mandatory psychological evaluation could be added to the regulations. If a psychiatric evaluation reveals clinical depression, it does not mean that is successfully treatable.
Hence, a person suffering from depression may eject the right to life. A utilitarian theory does not distinguish between psychological and physical illness as long as both types cause pain, suffering and the desire to die. For utilitarian it is of importance to consider whether the suffering is relievable and the request to die is made consciously (533-34). In a preference utilitarian view, the validity of the decision to die would depend on whether this decision would still be evident in a state of unimpaired mental faculties.
However, it is pointless to speculate whether the decision would be made by a person in good psychological health cause the person’s depression might not be treated successfully at all (534). Utilitarian reasoning defends the right to terminate one’s life at the instance of incurable depression. The issue arises when it is unclear whether the depression is chronic or momentary. But a utilitarian theory does not acknowledge the rejection of right to life due to a passing mental disorder.
Singer gives a reason for why voluntary Euthanasia is limited to physical suffering because the certainty that the mental suffering is persistent is hard to attain (535-36). According to utilitarian views, intensive palliative care which leads to enduring unconsciousness before death is not morally more exculpatory than voluntary Euthanasia because both cases have the same outcome of hastened death. Once the patient loses his or her consciousness due to sedatives, he or she is euthanized (537). Singer states that patients who refuse life-sustaining measure or accept palliative care that may hasten death are not less affected by depression.
And yet, according to opponents of voluntary Euthanasia, decisions by patients who refuse treatment or go through palliative care are rational. Singer argues that if a decision by a patient to effuse treatment or accept intensive palliative care, which may shorten life, is rational, then the decision by a patient for euthanasia is rational as well (538). Many discussions on Euthanasia contain reasoning based on medical ethics. Pipelining provides three arguments that speak against active voluntary Euthanasia that is implemented by physicians.
When active voluntary Euthanasia is performed or supported by a physician, the reputation of the physician as a healer is destroyed. The physician’s medical practice should only focus on healing because the physician patient feel comfortable until the occurrence of patient’ s death. Hence, the medical ethicist Pipelining argues that “healing is displaced by killing” if voluntary Euthanasia exists as an option (33). Additionally, he claims that trust between the physician and the patient is impaired as the physician is inclined to see active Euthanasia as the only “healing option” if a disease is not curable.
From this follows the probability that the patient’s desire for hastened death is affected by the physician’s perception that the patient’s life cannot be enhanced anymore and that peaceful death can only come from Euthanasia (34). He stresses his argument by taking the Netherlands as n example for “a great social laboratory for euthanasia” (34). He is convinced that that patients in Holland are afraid of receiving medical treatment in the hospitals because of the doctor’s tendencies to Euthanasia. He also thinks that the Netherlands constitutes a transition from voluntary to non- and involuntary Euthanasia.
According to Pipelining, another side effect of obtaining the right to perform euthanasia is the insensibility and emotional numbing towards death. The fact that the Hippocratic Oath in history was not always followed and physicians practiced euthanasia secretly does not Justify euthanasia morally. Indeed, the healing relationship is still harmed by the mere communication about the consideration of euthanasia between doctor and patient (35). Pipelining proposes that euthanasia should be prevented as it goes against medical ethics.
He sees Euthanasia as a “socially destructive option” that must not be practiced by any means. The adverse effects euthanasia has on society include the depreciation of life of those with disabilities and who are ill. The voluntaries for euthanasia of patients would be influenced by society that sees severely ill patients as strenuous and burdensome to he environment. With permitted voluntary Euthanasia, severely ill patients would be expected to choose the option of Euthanasia in order to avoid the image of “selfish overgenerous of their neighbors’ resources” (35).
Moreover, Pipelining anticipates an escalation of the situation in which the act of Euthanasia is allowed. He argues that the presence of optional Euthanasia in the United States would cause many patients with limited health care to choose Euthanasia involuntarily (36). Because the attitudes of advocates of Euthanasia contain the permission for euthanizing those ho suffer from disease and disabilities, they resemble the attitudes that were prevalent during the Nazi regime that supported the killing of “the physically unfit” (37).
Before finishing his second argumentation, Pipelining adds that physicians may not be involved in any act of assisted suicide and thus, cannot Justify their support for a patient’s request for assistance in dying because physician assisted suicide is, like Euthanasia, an act of killing (37). Pipelining comes to an end by suggesting several alternatives to voluntary Euthanasia that should be taken into account by physicians. Since, according to Pipelining, Euthanasia is a request for help and alleviation of pain, it is the physician’s duty to clarify matters concerning death and life-sustaining devices that are best suitable for the patient.
On top of that, pain relief is morally acceptable and should not be a concern for physicians as an addiction to painkillers before imminent death is completely normal and Justifiable. If a physician is not able to provide an extensive palliative care to minimize the patient’s misery, he or she should refuse to patient to a doctor who can offer adequate palliative care (38). He also suggests that Hessians should reduce social and financial pressures a patient might experience by communicating with his or her patients.
He concludes that permitted euthanasia involves the physician’s responsibility for carrying out the act of killing. Therefore, euthanasia harms the role of the physician as a healer because a peaceful death is not achieved through euthanasia (39). In response to Bewildering argumentation, Abram, a professor of Health Ethics, analyzes and criticizes Bewildering arguments. Abram does not believe in the loss of the patient’s trust to the doctors who is willing to practice voluntary active euthanasia.
On the contrary, a doctor whose occupation is not limited to preservation of life and healing, which cannot be achieved with many fatally and seriously ill patients, but who could in exceptional cases perform necessary euthanasia reinforces trust between him or her and the patient who has the choice (48). Clearly, a doctor who offers Euthanasia as a last resort is not able to provide successful treatment, but at least he did not “fail their patient” (49). Abram recognizes the risk of misuse of permitted voluntary Euthanasia because in the process of voluntary Euthanasia another individual is involved.
Thus, he emphasizes the inalienable requirement that the request of the competent patient has to be completely voluntary and any expressed by the patient. In order to avoid the likelihood of misuse of Euthanasia as a cover for homicide against one’s will, Abram points out that voluntary active euthanasia should always be subject to rigorous review by the public prosecutor (49). In other words, voluntary active euthanasia can only be legally accepted if it is performed in accordance to strict regulations such as RADAR.
Yet Abram is aware of the possibility that patients may request hastened death due to external reasons, such as limited medical care, persist. Nevertheless, he stresses the importance that voluntaries has to be scrutinized and approved by authorities. Thus, requests for active euthanasia that are affected by external reasons cannot be claimed and carried out. Finally, Abram suggest that certain regulations should be established that allow voluntary active euthanasia since euthanasia “is currently done without public approval”.
Abram regards the regulations of the RADAR as reasonable without elaborating on how permitted voluntary euthanasia would function in the U. S. 50). Ann Marie Begley, who is a lecturer of philosophy and ethics at the school of nursing, developed a view which takes the concept of virtue ethics into consideration and can serve as a response to Bewildering claim that doctors cannot Justify euthanasia in any case. A doctor who acts in accordance to the patient’s request for euthanasia is guided by the virtue of compassion.
In this case, the virtue of compassion is competing with the virtue of duty. Begley argues that in certain cases despite the neglect of duty of life sustained, a doctor can still “behave well and flourish” (437). Opposing arguments regarding voluntary active euthanasia only focus on the virtue of duty that opposes “the act of killing” which leads immediately to the conclusion that euthanasia is morally wrong whereas the concept of virtue ethics looks at different aspects in a situation that play an important and contributing part, before drawing a conclusion (437).
She also observes treatments by doctors that and unofficial act of Euthanasia (442-43). Unintended hastened death due to high doses of sedatives from intensive palliative care describes a double effect. This possible outcome of hastened death or double effect is widely accepted in the deiced and theological field it is (Abram, 47). Begley observes that the probability that some doctors, driven by compassion, increase the use of sedatives intentionally in order to hasten death cannot be ruled out (442).
In the end of her essay, Begley proposes that the law prohibiting unexceptional voluntary active euthanasia should “be challenged more vigorously by’ medical professionals because it motivates the physician to suppress compassion and choke emotions while treating a patient as it contradicts with the duty of not interfering with the patient’s process of suffering 444). A criticism on the legality of passive Euthanasia as opposed to the illegality of active Euthanasia is offered by the bioethics David Shaw.
He creates an example consisting of two cases in which the first case depicts the patient Adam who is attached to a ventilator and needs help in everyday life. The second case depicts Brian who is not dependent on life-sustaining devices but suffers from cancer and needs, like Adam, help in performing activities of daily living. Adam “is lucky in as much as he has a right… ” To terminate his life by expressing the request for the trihedral of the ventilator (Shaw, 520).
Briar’s body is, as Shaw puts it, a natural life-sustaining device that cannot be turned off if Brian requests it. Hence, Brian is punished “for having an internal natural heart and lungs… ” (520). Such a comparison between these two patients evokes the impression that patients dependent on life- sustaining treatment have additional benefit which is the benefit of having control over one’s own life.
It is emphasized that natural life-support, incarnated by the human body, is respected and valued which makes active euthanasia appear more challenging and controversial. The patient’s appreciation for his or her own body loses “all moral power when a patient decides that his or her body is now a burden” (Shaw, 519). From this moment on, it is irrelevant and indifferent for the patient whether his or her body is sustained by an artificial (life-sustaining-device) or sustained naturally by his or her own body.
Shaw criticizes the limitation on medical practices since it seems “… As if doctors are obeying the “wish” of the patient’s body… ” To be sustained as long as possible although the patient’s mind does not want to be in and endure the pain of his or her own body anymore. Shaw regards the limitation as “understandable” rather than “ethical” (520). Because a morally justifiable difference between voluntary and passive euthanasia does not exist, it would be fair to either abolish or legally recognize both types of euthanasia (521).
Many opponents who reject the legalization of Euthanasia, criticize the mere permission to practice voluntary active Euthanasia. Since Euthanasia can be carried out in Holland under certain required conditions while still maintaining its illegal status, it is argued that Holland and other Jurisdictions permitting Euthanasia present a “slippery slope”. A slippery slope signifies an undesired transition from the execution of a permitted act to an execution of a related illegal act caused by the legalization of the first (Lewis, 197).
Penny Lewis, professor of medical law and ethics at Kings College in London, offers a thorough analysis of the empirical slippery slope into a reasoning that focuses on the matter whether current practice of euthanasia can be an indicator of the slippery slope that would be evident through legalization and a reasoning that serves as a comparative base as the frequency level of reformed Euthanasia in Holland relative to other Jurisdictions’ frequency of performed euthanasia.
Opponents argue that once voluntary euthanasia is permitted, the frequency of performed non-voluntary euthanasia will most probably increase. Lewis invalidates this view by stating that Holland lacks pre-legalization data on the frequency of performed non-voluntary Euthanasia. However, survey data from 1990, 1995 and 2001 shows a stable rate overtime. Non-voluntary Euthanasia has not increased or decreased since its legal permission dependent on regulations. Lewis notes that opponents’ arguments are theoretical and resemble a speculation ether than proof supported by evidence (199).
Another aspect about legalization of voluntary euthanasia causing non-voluntary euthanasia deals with the positive correlation between permitted voluntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia. Nonetheless, the mere existence of performed voluntary and non-voluntary does not reveal or indicate a causal effect. Because there is a possibility that non-voluntary euthanasia could actually cause an increase in performance of voluntary euthanasia, and not the other way around, simultaneous increase of both types of euthanasia does not provide a causation of en or the other.
Additionally, if the increase of non-voluntary euthanasia were caused by legalization of voluntary euthanasia, the increase of non-voluntary euthanasia would have to be evident shortly after the legalization and not later as non-voluntary euthanasia could b caused by other events (200). Before the slippery slope thesis can be confirmed, stronger evidence is needed. Comparative evidence reveals that the Netherlands does not have a significantly higher frequency of performing euthanasia than other European countries that have not legalized such medical practice (201).
Among other Jurisdictions, Holland remains the country with the lowest rate of performed non-voluntary euthanasia (201). The higher rates of other Jurisdictions could be attributed to the “different baseline rates” (CTD. In Lewis, 201). For instance, the neglect of clarifying the legal status of a patient’s autonomy and informing the patient and the patient’s family about palliative care in pre- legalization Belgium explains why the Belgian Jurisdiction has higher rates of performed non-voluntary euthanasia.
Hence, it is argued that the legalization or “open regulations” of voluntary euthanasia in Jurisdictions that have high rates of unconcealed voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia could reduce the ambiguity and the concealment of practiced euthanasia because “prohibition may simply encourage doctors” to use passive euthanasia and palliative care consisting of high doses of sedatives as an intentional termination of life because it is legally allowed and “more difficult to detect” (204).
It is important to note that this conclusion only applies to jurisdictions that have higher rates of practiced euthanasia despite its illegal status. Conclusion By looking at the proponents and opponents, it is clear that different views are eased on different concepts and premises. After closer examination of the proponents’ arguments, a striking factor is the criticism of legally permitted passive indisputable. If letting a person die is morally Justifiable, then hastening a patient’s death actively is morally Justifiable as well.
The Utilitarian perspective underlines the weakness of the opponents’ argument that assumes a person who is suffering is not in a normal state of mind and therefore cannot request to end his or her life though it is unlikely for a suffering person to be in a calm state of mind. If euthanasia was equally allowed in the United States as it is in Holland, the regulations would be different and adjusted to the health care situation.
Although euthanasia is completely illegal in the United States, it is still performed covertly and thus cannot be reviewed by the public prosecutor. There is no Judicial control over such acts due to its illegal status (Batting, 96). It would be wise and reasonable to reconsider the current strict prohibition of voluntary active euthanasia in industrialized countries with advanced health care systems. A patient’s rights have to be recognized even if e or she is not dependent on a life-sustaining device.
A competent patient should have the same right of requesting a peaceful death as the patient who may hasten his or her own death by refusing further treatment and thus, choosing passive euthanasia. Therefore, I propose a reconsideration and reassessment of the illegality of voluntary active euthanasia and thorough analysis of its application in a federally regulated medical environment. Such reconsideration would give people a chance to actively choose their own fates and thus promote the quality of their life as they see fit.
