Written By: Falakdipti
People have
access to medical assistance, but there are cases where it does not aid a
person to deal with or overcome the pain and suffering one has to go through
due to an ailment. In situations where a patient’s condition is deemed
‘hopeless’, and the person is experiencing emphatic mental and physical agony,
euthanasia is seen as the only ray of hope.
The term
Euthanasia, a noun, was coined the 1640s and comes from two Greek words- Eu,
which means good, and Thanatos, which means death.[1]
Therefore,
euthanasia can be simply translated to ‘good death’. It is a practice of
intentionally ending someone’s life to relieve them from pain and suffering,
performed under medical supervision. Euthanasia is mainly of three types: [2]
· Voluntary euthanasia, which is done
with the consent of the patient and is legal in some countries
· Involuntary euthanasia, which is
conducted without or against the patient’s will and is illegal in all countries
· Non-voluntary euthanasia, which takes
place when the patient cannot consent and is illegal in all countries.
The difference between involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary
euthanasia is that in the former, the patient is in the state of giving consent
but is euthanised against his will, whereas in the
latter the patient is in a state where his consent is unavailable. This happens
in cases where the patient is in a vegetative state, for example being in a
coma, or is a young child.
These 3
classifications can be further divided into two: [3]
· Active Euthanasia, the more
controversial type of euthanasia which entails the administration of a lethal
substance by medical professionals which is introduced to the patient’s body to
put him out of misery, for example, lethal injections. It is legal only in a handful of countries.
· Passive Euthanasia, which is allowed
in more countries and is considered more ‘ethical’. It is called ‘pulling the
plug’ in layman language. In this type of euthanasia, the patient is deprived
of the medical treatment required for the continuation of life.
Legality of
Euthanasia has always been a subject of debate. Some consider it an act done
with bonafide intentions while for some it is an immoral deed. Every country
has its own laws on euthanasia. In countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands,
Luxemburg and Colombia, euthanasia is a legal practice and can be performed on
volunteers as young as twelve-year-old, with parental consent. Countries like
India, Chile, Argentina, Spain and France legally allow passive euthanasia, but
active euthanasia is deemed illegal by their respective laws. Most countries,
for example, China, Pakistan, Russia, Brazil and Sri Lanka consider both types
of euthanasia illegal. Lastly, there are countries like Chad, Afghanistan,
Niger, Libya and Venezuela where the status of legality is unknown. [4]
The reason
why the concept of legality of euthanasia remains so controversial and
undecided is the same as other moral debates. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ if one excluded the legal context. Values and ethics are different for
different people. Those in favour of the act state that it relieves a
person from great pain, and saves the family from spending money on an
untreatable case. Those who speak against it say that the practice might be
misused and from a religious perspective, is a sin since life is a gift from
God and pain have a spiritual value. Both sides of the argument can be
deliberated as correct.
The
ambiguity and controversy over the topic of euthanasia, despite scientific
and technological progress the world has achieved, imposes a dilemma over
healthcare workers, mainly in the case of passive euthanasia. Healthcare
professionals, especially in oncology and neurology department, often encounter
ethical issues when the time to choose between two options: either let the
person continue to survive and let him go through dolour or choose the
‘ethically unacceptable’ option and put the patient out of woe. They are
obligated to put their own moral reasoning to use and make a decision the
personally think is correct. This not only is a problem for workers of the medical
sector, but also for the patient, whose life depends on the decision and the
bias of the worker. [5] [6]
The most common argument used against euthanasia, especially active euthanasia in that
it reduces the value of life and can be used to cause unrequired death of the
patient for someone else’s gain. To refute the statement those in favour of the
subject put forward the point that the countries that allow the practice of
euthanasia only allow voluntary euthanasia, that is, the consent of the patient is
taken. The person should have the right over his own life, and cannot possibly
allow being ‘murdered’.
The most
logical way to put an end to this forever on-going debate is to legalize
euthanasia in all free countries. What a terminally-ill person is going through
can only be understood by him, hence the right over his life should belong to
him. With strict laws and compulsion of consent, the practice cannot be possibly
misused, and if ending one’s life legally brings peace to the person and the
kin, then so be it.
Word count-
852 (excluding bibliography)
CITATIONS:
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/euthanasia
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/volinvol.shtml
[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197501092920206
[4] https://www.theweek.in/webworld/features/lifestyle/euthanasia-laws-around-the-world.html
[5] Ellis and
Hartley, Managing and Coordinating Nursing Care, 1995
[6] Mrayyan and
Naga, Legal and Ethical Issues Of Euthanasia, 2013
these papers go hard love it wow
ReplyDeletehappy birthday yo
ReplyDelete