Euthanasia

Should Euthanasia be legalised?

Dianne Pretty is one of the many unfortunate patients who had no choice but to leave the world in a painful demise. While Dianne was suffering from the terminal phase of motor neuron disease, she wanted her husband to be spared from prosecution should he took part in assisting her voluntary suicide. However, The Telegraph (2002) reported that she died of breathing difficulties three days later following an unsuccessful legal battle with the European Court of Human Rights, who dismissed her claim that the British courts infringed her human rights by denying her assisted suicide with the help of her husband. Had euthanasia been a legal procedure, Diane Pretty would not have to go through the frightening ordeal of asphyxiation - which she wanted to avoid - during her dying moments. Euthanasia, which also goes by terms 'mercy killing' and 'assisted suicide', is officially defined as 'a quiet, painless death', 'the intentional putting to death by artificial means of persons with incurable painful disease' in Stedmans Medical Dictionary and 'the act of killing someone painlessly, especially to relieve suffering from an incurable illness' in Collins English Dictionary respectively. From the implied context, it is logical to deduce that euthanasia is the only ideal alternative to people under excruciating pain, whose certain bodily parts may have ceased to function, such as brain, or with terminal diseases despite the legal inhibition. If euthanasia provides the 'good death', why are humans being denied the right and the freedom of choice to avoid physical pain and minimizing suffering of those who are involved?  Rather than being forbidden by law, euthanasia should be legalized as it is rightful for each individual to decide what’s beneficial for themselves and it also works as a merciful retreat from a potentially damaging, painful and afflicting outcome not only for those who wants it but for their families as well.

Euthanasia offers freedom over an individual's own life by permitting oneself to bring death upon oneself and the choice on how to carry out those actions. Every person should be allowed to decide on matters regarding their own life and death, including the freedom of decision to die. According to British Social Attitudes Report (1996), 82% of the public supports the legislation of euthanasia, with the strongest support amounting to 86% in the case of an individual who is unable to decide for his future due to an incurable illness that renders him dependent on a life support machine. The legal system is breaching the constitution of basic human rights by curbing the use of euthanasia, a statement supported by psychiatrist and Professor Emeritus at the State University of New York Health Science Centre, Thomas Szasz in 'Suicide: Right or Wrong' with the quote "to deny the right to assisted suicide is to deny freedom". In the famous case of Sue Rodriguez who suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease, she challenged the Supreme Court of Canada by claiming the Constitution of her rights of personal liberty and autonomy guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are violated by the ban on assisted suicide, to which the court rejected by stating that the society's obligation to preserve life and protect the vulnerable outweighed her rights. She also raised an interesting question pertaining the ownership of one's body by asking "If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" (CBC News, 2009). The notion of individualism is essential to political understanding since it allows people to act as they wish and to satisfy their interests in a democratic society. John Stuart Mill, one of the architects of democratic doctrine believed that "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Individual liberty in choice of death method is also supported by eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume (An Essay on Suicide, 1789) who expressed that all individuals in a free society should be able to choose the manner of their death. Humanists such as Hume also believe that decisions and wishes on such personal matters should be respected if an individual is in full possession of information and capable of sound judgment in discontinuing a life of no value (British Humanist Association, 2007).

Euthanasia is a compassionate method for those who wishes to put an end their pain or the suffering of people around them through a rational, dignified and humane death. Rather than prolonging their life that leads to unnecessary pain, suffering and indignity, wise and considerate individuals who do care for the people around them – whose life still goes on – would opt for a voluntary euthanasia. David Swanton, a Canberra-based ethicist and scientist, exclaimed that "Euthanasia is about individual choice and dignity, and for that reasons it is a rational and humane cause." A Spanish man by the name of Ramon Sanpedro described himself as "a head attached to a corpse" after being paralyzed from a swimming accident during his youth. With the assistance of a doctor, he sought to lawfully end his life with the court's consent. He wrote the following in his appeal: "Why die? Because every journey has its departure time and only the traveller has the privilege and the right to choose the last day to get out. Why to die? Because at times the journey of no return is the best path that reason can show us out of love and respect for life, so that life may have a dignified death" (Euthanasia in Spain, 1990). Euthanasia can be trusted as a way for a person to die in a noble and appropriate manner, according to ancient Roman orator and statesman Cicero who stated "a good death is the ideal way of respecting natural law and public order by departing from the Earth with dignity and tranquility." In fact, a majority of medical professionals expressed their desire to assist their patients in ending their lives in a humane, respectful manner. Among the population at large, opinion polls reported by Glasgow University in 1996 shows insurmountable consent for the legislation of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). 54% of medical practitioners are in the favour of changing the law to allow PAS under certain circumstances, with barely 36% of them against such a change. A majority of the professionals (55%) thought that this should be allowed if an individual "had a terminal condition or was in a state of extreme mental or physical suffering".

As a conclusion, it is evidently clear that findings confirm euthanasia is certainly part of basic human rights and freedom. The increasing support for euthanasia within a substantial majority of the UK population is proven with the British Social Attitudes Report (1996) that recorded 75% (1984) in favour of authorizing medical assistance in ending the life of a patient to free them from a painful incurable disease increasing to 79% (1989) and later on 84% (1994). These findings are also mirrored by the NOP poll in 1993, which shown a substantial increase in consent for medical assistance in dying between 69% (1976) and 79%(1993). According to John Stuart Mill, "the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Euthanasia can be noble, can be compassionate and can be merciful to those in the direst of needs. Euthanasia allows freedom, choice and respects human rights as only one that has the life can choose what is best for oneself. Euthanasia can drastically reduce the number of suffering people that extend beyond the patient, including family, relatives and close friends, and it is the most merciful decision by the society by not negating the most basic desire for a human being to not put up with agonizing continuation of meaningless, despair-driven cling to life. The cruelest thing to be done to a person with no hope, no joy and no willingness to go on, is to deny their most important decision to stop.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
References

1. McCormack, P. (1998). Quality of Life and the Right to Die: An Ethical Dilemma. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 63-69.

2. Laville, S. (2002, 13 May). Diane Pretty dies in the way she always feared. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1394038/Diane-Pretty-dies-in-the-way-she-always-feared.html

3. Guerra, M. J. (1990). Euthanasia in Spain: The Public Debate after Ramon Sampedro's Case. A Report from Spain, 13.

4. Jowell, R. and Curtice, J. (Eds.)(1996) The 13th British Social Attitude Report. Retrieved from http://www.euthanasia.cc/stats.htm

5. Jordan, G. (2004, 15 December). Into the Life of a Man Fighting for the Right to Die. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/movies/15samp.html

6. Hume, D. (1789). An Essay on Suicide. Yellow Springs, Reprint. Retrieved from http://www.deathreference.com/En-Gh/Euthanasia.html#b#ixzz1v8n7iEZP

7. Swanton, D. (2010, 11 May). Euthanasia is a rational and humane cause. On Line Opinion. Retrieved from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10407

8. Powell, J.G.F. (Ed.).(1988). Cato Maior de senectute. Cicero. Cambridge University Press.

9. McLean, S.A.M. and Britton, A. (1996). Glasgow University Physician Assisted Suicide Report. Sometimes A Small Victory. Retrieved from http://www.euthanasia.cc/stats.htm

Capital Punishment

Should Capital Punishment be abolished?

Capital punishment, also known as death penalty or execution, is the judicial mechanism which is legally institutionalized with the intent of depriving an individual the right to live as a method of the highest possible authorized punishment. However, Canada and 16 American states have already abolished death penalty, while Californians were given a chance to vote on April 2012, Election day if whether lifetime imprisonment without parole was an appropriate replacement for it. According to May 2006 Gallup Poll, public opinion expressed more support towards lifetime sentence without parole at 48% compared to death penalty at 47%. If capital punishment was initially established to serve the civil society, what is the reason behind recent trend towards its abolishment? The answer lies in the simple fact that capital punishment is inherently flawed in terms of flexibility and it is both financially and economically taxing.

The death sentence is an unjust legal procedure, both irreversible once ruled and incapable of accounting for considerations when handed down to a possibly undeserving or underprivileged criminal. The system does make provision for all the unique circumstances and different factors that have driven the crime before handing down the ultimatum of execution onto the offenders. Oftentimes, a blind eye is turned towards criminals on death row over crimes that should not have warranted a death penalty for law is held as the absolute. In the documentary of “The Condemned: Bali Nine”, we were shown how nine young Australians arrested on the charges of drug smuggling turned over a new leaf and lead productive lives despite being confined to a prison. From their efforts in seeking education, hosting language classes and art galleries, we are able to sense their sincerity in repenting for a naïve mistake and also see that they are trying to earn a well-deserved second chance in life. Regardless, the law does not make provision for a second opportunity they all deserve, which in turn is a direct transgression of human rights. Prejudice also plays a role in deciding between life and death of a convict in court, according to Santa Clara Law Review (2005) that revealed offenders to be over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death if they killed whites instead of blacks or Latinos. The worse that can happen is when an executed offender that is found innocent after his sentence is carried out. Since death is not reversible, the deaths of the wrongly accused remains as a permanent scar on the records of the legislation and serves as an awful reminder to the society that even deadly mistakes can be made in court. It is reported that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights (1993) proved the innocence of over 130 people on death row with evidence. Hence, we can infer that the court passes judgment more recklessly than people would like to believe. The basis of capital punishment has thus became a gamble of one’s life, with the cards being the flawed system, lack of competency in the assigned attorney, any form of prejudice against the accused, a meticulous investigation or the lack of thereof, and collection and the timing of the evidence.

From the utilitarian standpoint, capital punishment is a major financial burden with its hefty costs incurred during the administration and proceedings in the court. As taken from Los Angeles Times (2005), "the California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state's execution." Despite the age-old argument of life not having a price tag, a monetary value can be indeed assigned to individual life in the modern capitalistic society. The absolute and irrefutable evidence supporting this fact is the very existence of the multi-billion dollar industry thriving even during recession providing a service that is so vague in its terms: the life insurance. Nonetheless, this is a debate for another day. Capital punishment is in many aspects similar to a suicide if you exclude the cause of death. In sociological point of view, a suicide is a form of avoidance of responsibilities towards the society, as all humans are responsible in some way to their peers and people around them, not to mention his country. Suicide from Death Row as written by Lester and Tartaro (2002) revealed that the suicide rates among inmates with an impending capital punishment is 113 per 100,000 from the year 1976 to 1999, ten times more than  the rate of suicides in the whole prison population within United States. By choosing to take one's own life, freedom from all burdens is achieved with complete disregard towards the consequences or the effects it may bring. Death Penalty Info (2011) also provided the information of having 137 prisoners waiving their appeals and asking for an execution instead. In a financial perspective, suicide could be regarded as a loss of productivity and potential financial loss, as people are capable of generating wealth during their lifetime. If these two aspects are fused together to examine capital punishment on a slightly different angle, death sentence is lost labour and avoidance of social responsibility for the committed crime. Combined together, there is hardly anything more ineffective and inefficient, not to mention uneconomical, as the capital punishment.

In brief, capital punishment has so many downsides. It is archaic, old, and not thoroughly devised. It does not make room for a second opportunity for the fairness of justice, nor incorporates a procedural mechanism to correct and amend itself. As the research data shows, it is clearly ineffective for its purpose of crime prevention and reduction, not to mention it is uneconomical as the process is lengthy and requires very specific, qualified personnel to be involved. Above all, it is also a transgression of human rights. Based on all the points and findings, it is evident that we have learned enough from capital punishment so far to deem this practice outdated and impractical. If aforementioned factors are taken into consideration, isn't it already due time for this system to be put out of place? With capital punishment abolished, we can only expect for the corrective systems to improve in its efficiency, crime rates decreasing, less financial pressure to the poorly funded courts and resulting in the savings being invested for a better cause within the society.


References


To be added soon.