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
Another excellent essay. It would have been even better if the discussion, even when taking a firm stance, had show signs of awareness or of addressing the counter-arguments of not legalizing Euthanasia.
ReplyDelete