Euthanasia Conundrum
Author name:- Nikki
Shanti De Cortie, a Belgian woman who survived a terror attack in 2016, has now opted to willfully put an end to her life. In other words, she has opted for Euthanasia, a phenomenon in which an individual wilfully ends their life in order to eliminate their pain and suffering. She was merely 23 at the time of her death and had been suffering from depression as a result of witnessing the bomb detonations at the tender age of 17. Euthanasia, which has been legal in Belgium since 2002, has recently sparked a round of ever rising discussions across the globe. The Canadian Parliament has already had three sessions of discussion on legalising euthanasia for the mentally challenged. There has been a gradual rise in similar debates in the legislations of Europe and Australia since the beginning of the last decade. The situation already bears an oblivious disposition on what seems to be the most talked about legislatory dispute of the medical world.
What does the legality of Euthanasia mean for the common masses? Is mankind equipped to bear the consequences of willful termination of life which may be far reaching in their own right? What are we, as a state, essentially trying to achieve and how does that differ with the status quo of the term? Before leading to the questions surrounding the topic, one needs to have a clear understanding of the term and its associated parlances.
The American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs defines euthanasia as the act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless manner for reasons of mercy.
The phrase "reasons of mercy" is the primary term here, pointing to the fact that the sole advantage of undergoing euthanasia is the riddance from suffering and no gain of any other kind is drawn by the medical team and kin of the patient. When the patient gives consent before being operated with the procedure, it is termed as voluntary Euthanasia, and is the widely accepted legal form of the phenomenon. However, it may so happen that the circumstances of the individual's illness may leave them unable to give any form of consent or denial. In this situation, another appropriate person takes the decision on behalf of the patient. This is termed as Non Voluntary Euthanasia. This often gives rise to a moral dilemma as it puts the life and suffering of the patient into the hands of a completely separate individual. This practice is still allowed in some parts of the world, while being under debate in the rest of the countries. There is yet another situation in which Euthanasia is performed on a patient who, albeit able to provide informed consent, chooses not to, either because they do not want to die or because they were not asked. This is called Involuntary euthanasia and morally boils down to homicide, thus making it illegal.
Historically, Euthanasia started out as a common practice and the term literally meant “good death.” It was the practice of dying in peace and with dignity. For the physician, it meant caring for the patient with compassion and alleviating pain and suffering. However, the physicians of ancient times were also given free reign to cause the death of his patients. The sick person remained unaware as to whether they would be healed or killed by the physician.The Oath of Hippocrates (500 BC) was the first attempt from a group of concerned physicians to establish a set of ethical principles that would guide the practice of medicine. This set of moral principles defined the physician as a healer, rejecting the role of purveyor of death. The principle of “primum non nocere,” first do no harm, became one of the guidelines in the doctor–patient relationship and remained for 2500 years.
By the late nineteenth century, supported by utilitarian philosophy and Darwinian survival of the fittest, the concept of a right to death surfaced in Europe. Articles appeared in the German medical literature, with Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche publishing the manuscript “Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life," in 1920. Intending to benefit society, the authors advised eliminating those whose life was devoid of value and a burden to society. The victims were those near death who requested to die, “idiots” whose life was without a purpose, and those in a comatose state due to trauma with little chance of recovery. The publication proved to be a landmark for the euthanasia program that would follow. Advocates of euthanasia, while few at first, gradually increased in number, including many who were academic physicians and professors at medical schools.
The actual, organised killing began in the 1930s. It started with the killing of infants and children with congenital defects and mental retardation followed by disabled and mentally ill adults and the terminally ill. The killing criterion was subsequently expanded to include adults and children with ‘antisocial behavior’ and those with minor handicaps. Children and adults from psychiatric institutions were killed by lethal injections. When this method proved costly and inconvenient, gas chambers were built in some hospitals. Patients were transferred to these hospitals for extermination. The impetus for the program was medical economics. The Nazi government at the time was considerably enthusiastic in supporting and sanctioning the program and in turn, decriminalizing the process. With the assistance of the state, the procedure became impersonal and automatic. The killing by the physicians preceded the genocide of the Holocaust.
Around the same time, groups and organizations across the globe emerged which advocated in favour of this medical practice regardless of the demerits that it carried. The euthanasia debate has tended to focus on a number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:
- that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate;
- assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer;
- the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive; and
- permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences.
These arguments are a clear reflection of the principle of autonomy and ethics of compassion. Moreover, modern culture does view pain and suffering as disgraceful and undignified to the extent that they can be acceptably removed by any means possible. But what these arguments fail to understand is that true compassion essentially means sharing the burden of the one suffering and can, in no way, justify the taking of an innocent life. Another recommendation, that a central governmental agency be set up to monitor or regulate the assisted killing of suffering patients, has its own drawbacks. Taking notes from the German experience of the past century, the practice would unknowingly become impersonal and automatic.
The goal of medicine is cure. Termination of life can never be a solution of medicine. Only the most painful and outrightly severe situations may demand the practice of euthanasia. But when it comes to legalising the practice and making it general, these situations are insufficient to be a motivation. Our cultures and philosophies have valued life and termination of one can never be a moral act.
I will use that regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, shall be for the welfare of the sick, and I will refrain from that which shall be baneful and injurious.
(Oath of Hippocrates, circa 500 BC).
Bibliography
1.)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026994/
2.)https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951#history
-Sumeet Kumar