There is much debate regarding the legalization of euthanasia – the deliberate process of terminating a person’s life for reasons related to compassion. Since the advent of this controversial issue, both proponents and opponents have put forth several compelling reasons for and against euthanasia. Those supporting euthanasia contend that society needs to allow people to die in dignity and painlessly, and should allow others – physicians in this case – to help them do so if they cannot accomplish it alone. On the contrary, those opposing the legalization of this practice assert that life is God-given, and no one has the right to decide when to terminate is; opponents also highlight several legal and ethical implications of legalizing euthanasia. By carefully examining both arguments, it is evident that opponents’ arguments not only outweigh proponents’ claims but also seem more compelling. Thus, the administration should not legalize euthanasia, drawing from religious, legal, and ethical implications.
Support
The case against euthanasia and PAS takes different perspectives. From a religious – exemplified by the Catholic Church – perspective, anyone professing to a particular religion understands the prohibitions on murder and suicide. According to Cherry (2018), from a religious perspective, euthanasia and PAS go against the commands that prohibit murder and suicide, even if they adhere to individual consent. Typically, any religious person will understand that taking someone’s life bears a lot of spiritual significance. The same applies to medical practice, as this significance covers both physicians and patients. The core assertion, in this case, is that euthanasia and PAS are biased acts. Besides, patients’ desire or request to terminate their lives does not change the act’s moral character or spiritual significance. Therefore, engaging in these practices implies that one not only willingly fails to recognize that suffering may have value – from a religious perspective – but also goes against God’s will besides furthering the weakening of society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
Second, the legalization of euthanasia and PAS creates a glide path toward the slippery slope, an argument supported by a considerable proportion of legal practitioners and scholars. As Ahdar (2016) explains, even though arguments favoring the legalization of voluntary euthanasia and PAS appear compelling, the fact remains that laws related to these practices are susceptible to noncompliance and abuse. Drawing from the slippery slope argument, it is clear that accepting and legalizing these practices could perpetually result in the acceptance or practice of concepts such as involuntary euthanasia presently deemed improper. Grounded on the construct of the “arbitrary line,” accepting an act A, automatically leads to the acceptance of another act, A1, which is insignificantly different from A. As a result, this opens the window for the acceptance of other acts A2, A3, …, and eventually to the improper act B. In this case, acts A and B are not significantly different; thus, it would be impossible to accept A and deny B. That is, drawing a line between these two would create an untenable cut-off point. Take, for instance, the case of infanticide (involuntary euthanasia) and severely deformed children. If the law allows this practice for children with severe disabilities upon delivery, what would happen if these disabilities become recognizable at three or even six months? This implies that preventing the occurrence of these unwanted practices necessitates resisting taking the initial step.
Apart from the religious and legal implications, legalizing euthanasia and PAS poses severe social and ethical implications. Research by Sulmasy, Travaline, Mitchell, and Elly (2016) captured some of the non-religious based arguments against euthanasia and PAS, including devaluing of human life, a gradual erosion of limits, the capabilities of modern therapeutics and palliative care in pain management, and the subsequent violation of physician integrity and patient trust. Generally, legalizing these practices spells the weakening of society’s respect for the importance and value of human life. Secondly, the health care sector has recently undergone tremendous shifts that have made available palliative care that helps reduce or remove the need for people to be in pain. Third, opponents believe that legalizing euthanasia augments the likelihood of undermining doctors’ commitment to save people’s lives. The act of engaging in euthanasia not only disrespects the integrity of the physician involved but also creates a contradiction. When a physician participates in either euthanasia or PAS, s/he undermines the principles of ethics and integrity, which set the foundation of medical practice as a compassionate service to afraid, alienated, alone, sick, vulnerable, or wounded individuals. Subsequently, this dents the patient’s wholesomeness, something s/he desperately tries to achieve. Furthermore, this practice erodes the patient’s trust in their physician whom s/he expects to be a caregiver. Thus, legalizing this practice undermines both physician integrity and patient trust.
Opposition
Despite the seemingly endless arguments against euthanasia and PAS, proponents of these practices have come forward to defend their moral permissibility and the need for legalization. One primary argument in favor of these practices, especially passive euthanasia, is that the practice is allegedly widespread, and people do not want to confess willingly. Greif (2019), in his article, “The Morality of Euthanasia,” argues that requested adult euthanasia is morally permissible, considering the analogic argument that compares PAS with the morally less ambiguous and seemingly acceptable instance of mercy killing. Grounded on the pragmatic argument, those in favor of these practices contend that euthanasia mainly involves many of the end-of-life practices, and the only difference is the name given to these practices. For instance, the medical practice includes the ‘Do Not Attempt Resuscitation’ (DNAR) order, where a patient requests that clinicians should not render treatment if the former stops breathing or their heart stops beating. As such, critics term this practice as virtually a form of passive euthanasia as clinicians often deny patients treatment that could potentially save the latter’s life. Another example highlighted by this group relates to palliative sedation (PS), which involves putting to sleep – using sedative drugs – patients experiencing extreme suffering for which clinicians lack effective treatment. For instance, clinical practitioners often use this practice when treating burn victims whose demise is expected. In this case, the assertion is that whereas doctors do not use PS to end a patient’s life purposely, many of the drugs used often carry the danger of shortening an individual’s lifespan. Thus, PS could serve as a type of active euthanasia. Consequently, this pragmatic argument holds that if the performance of euthanasia – as illustrated by the examples above – is ongoing, then there is nothing to stop the legislature from legalizing the practice.
Counterargument
While proponents present somewhat compelling arguments to back their support for the legalization of euthanasia, the fact remains that most of these arguments are not persuasive. PS is not euthanasia, and those supporting the latter’s legalization understand this significant difference. The fundamental variances in these concepts make them distinctly separate. Generally, PS involves progressive sedatives’ utilization to attain the desired comfort level for terminally ill patients experiencing unrelieved suffering. Death then follows shortly after the patient’s sedation. It is an argument that forms one of the claims presented by those in favor of euthanasia. However, those who rely on this type of argument fail to understand is that what distinguishes PS from euthanasia is the doctor’s intention. Whereas euthanasia involves a physician terminating a patient’s life in response to suffering or severe pain, the intent of PS is to relieve suffering rather than cause death. Besides, clinicians only palliatively sedate patients to relieve them of severe, unrelieved suffering, and only utilize this practice when the patient nears their demise. Moreover, in PS, either the patient or their healthcare decision-maker often decides the amount and period of sedation. Even though death may soon follow sedation, it is not clear if the sedative drug or the patient’s terminal illness is responsible for their demise. Since the doctor’s intention, in this case, is not to hasten or cause death, one cannot equate PS with euthanasia or PAS.
Conclusion
In brief, the arguments against euthanasia sufficiently show why legalizing the practice is unethical and goes against religious, legal, and social constructs of life and the need to uphold one’s life. Currently, voluntary euthanasia is permitted in the Netherlands and Belgium and illegal in the remaining nations. Likewise, no government has legalized involuntary euthanasia, an act that opponents believe will be the outcome of legalizing the former. The deliberate extermination of another person’s life amounts to manslaughter or murder even if the victim gives their consent.
References
Ahdar, R. T. (2016). The Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. New Zealand Law Review, 2016(3), 459-506. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/lrf/nzlr/2016/00002016/00000003/art00001
Cherry, M. J. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia: How not to die as a Christian. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 24 (1), 1–16. Doi: 10.1093/cb/cbx021
Greif, A. (2019). The Morality of Euthanasia. Organon F, 4, 612-34 https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=822200
Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., Mitchell, L. A., & Ely, E. W. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Linacre Quarterly, 83(3), 246-257. Doi: 10.1080/00243639.2016.1201375