EUTHANASIA

arguments against euthanasia

Legalisation of euthanasia might lead to assaults on individual autonomy.

Persons may be subjected to pressure to ask for their own death by being

made to feel guilty for the burden they impose on family and carers. Further,

professional carers (doctors, nurses) may be pressed into taking life against

their own judgements.

A person's expression of a desire to end his life may be influenced by a state

of depression. A person's capacity to make an informed and competent

decision may be difficult to ascertain.

Another problem appears if others are empowered to make decisions for the ill

or incapacitated person. When some advantage may accrue to the carer on the

death of the helpless person (for example independence, money, property)

then there may be more motivation to make independent arbitrary decisions,

without taking account of the patient's wishes.

The power can be misused to get rid of specified individuals or groups.

It could be difficult to discover, after a person's death, whether that death had

occurred from "natural causes" or as a result of correctly (or incorrectly)

carried out procedures of euthanasia.

There could also be a failure to bring about an easy death. An acceptable

method may fail to kill the person within a reasonable time and so may cause

more suffering.

arguments for euthanasia

It's within the rights of a human being to choose whether to live or to die.

They have a right to decide whether quality or sanctity of life is most

important to them. Euthanasia would allow them to do so, without placing

other people in legal jeopardy.

Caring for or watching someone suffer, without any chance of relief or

recovery, can become difficult to tolerate for the carers and watchers, both

emotionally and physically, so that the carer's only prospect of relief resides

in the death of the patient.

The perceived impropriety of making use of high technology and expensive

medical procedures in cases where the only positive outcome is the temporary

lengthening of life, without improvement in quality of life or prospect of

recovery is often seen as an argument for euthanasia.

Legally, a person who kills another or connives at the death of another, breaks

the law and may be charged with a serious criminal offence (murder or

manslaughter) and may be convicted and punished.

Passive euthanasia: withdrawl of life-sustaining treatment

Active euthanasia: putting end to life of a person who, due to disease or

extreme age, can no longer lead a meaningful life.

Most opposition to the decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia arises from

religious groups. They believe that only God can give and take away life.

A slippery slope - voluntary will soon lead to involuntary. There is no

evidence for this argument at all. VE as an individual choice is entirely

distinct from murdering people who are judged (by others) to have to worth.

If euthanasia was brought into the open and strictly controlled there would be

less chance of abuse.

The majority of people who support the idea of euthanasia do so because they

are thinking in terms of putting dying patient out of intolerable pain.

I think it's natural to hope that when the time comes I shall die peacefully

with dignity and without prolonged suffering.

Euthanasia doesn't mean getting rid of the old, the infirm and the unwanted.

That's one of the most common misunderstandings and misinterpretations I

have to dispose of.

Euthanasia helps patients to die with dignity rather than have their lives

prolonged by medical technology by no clear purpose.

Moreover I think that loss of independence is likely to be a much more

significant catalyst than pain.

Lots of people are suffering a "living death" in a persistent vegetative state.

The issue is to sensitive and the ethical question too profund to come to a

simple conclusion. But I think events are forcing some kind of reform.

Under certain circumstances death seems preferable to life to some people.

They request termination of their life because of incurable

disability/pain/suffering

To respond with euthanasia is to agree that the person's life is worthless. It

diminishes a person's self-worth.

Everybody should make a Living Will expressing his view on euthanasia.

It is possible to make a Living Will leaving instructions that, in the event of

some incurable illness, no special efforts should be made to keep one alive.

Many doctors and nurses have strong religious and ethical objections to acting

on such instructions. And even a LV can't give doctors permission to

administer a fatal injection or an exit pill. I am not even sure it is reasonable

to burden any one doctor or relative with the responsibility of ending a human

life, however severely damaged brain and body may be.

Quality of life is only something that the individual concerned can assess.

It would be a kindness if she could have a pill or an injection to end the

indignity and misery of her advanced cancer. I have begun to have doubts

about the ethics of euthanasia. If I had given her the "exit pill " I would have

been tormented by guilt afterwards. When sufferers are physically and

mentally incapacitated and unable to communicate, who can tell how much

understanding remains and what their wishes and feelings are? It is easy to

write them off as having no quality of life, but how can we be sure they do not

still find life worth living? We discussed how the disease could possibly

develop and she never once suggested she would like her life terminated. She

seemed determined to fight to retain her faculties as long as possible. In the

moments when I considered it would have been a kindness to end her life, it

was probably because, selfishly, I was finding her suffering unbearable. I

could never have considered euthanasia in my uncle's case.

I believe now that if I were told I had disease my reaction would be to tidy

up my affairs and make a quick exit while I still had the ability to do so. But

I don't think I would have the means or even the courage to end it all. My

conviction now is that if I were reduced to a helpless state by dementia I

should want someone to switch me off. But legally, no one could.

Do you consider life to be sacrosanct or do you think that there might be

situations in which one could take another person's life?

life has still got something to offer me / in store for me, being paralysed

doesn't prevent me from, quality of life wasn't reduced, no one can imagine

what it means to be in my shoes, decisions influenced by momentary pain,

takes lot of devotion to treat people if you are easily disgusted, do it on

charity basis, to be reunited in eternity.

die: pass away, pass on, lose one's life, depart this life, expire, decease, breathe

one's last, meet one's end, lay down one's life, be no more, perish, go to

one's last resting-place, cross the Styx, give up the ghost, kick the bucket,

push up the daisies, bite the dust, snuff it croak, turn up one's toes, cash in

one's chips, hop the twig

death: dying, decease, demise, end, passing (away/on), loss of life, expiration,

departure from life, final exit, curtains

dead: deceased, late, defunct, departed, lifeless, extinct, perished, gone, no

more, passed on, passed away