The Issue of The Legalization of Assisted Suicide

“I've chosen to be euthanized because I have a lot of mental health issues. I suffer unbearably and hopelessly. Every breath I take is torture…'. These are the words of a 29-year old Dutch woman who drank poison to end her life. Death is an inevitable reality. Every living species will die one day but then why these words of a 29year old strike differently? Why does it create an impact on the readers? The reason is that her death is caused by her own choice. She faced a dying process opted and selected by herself. But what this dying process is? It is euthanasia. Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a person suffering from some incurable disease to end his suffering and pain. It is also termed as mercy killing or merciful release. In medicinal terminologies, euthanasia is named as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). There are four types of euthanasia: Voluntary, Involuntary, Active and Passive euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when life is terminated by person’s own consent, as in above instance of Dutch woman. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand is a death caused through the decision made by another person, preferably a physician. Likewise, active euthanasia is performed by injecting some lethal drug into the blood vessels of the patient and passive euthanasia is done by intentionally removing any external intervention or aid which is keeping a person alive. Orthothanasia is another term for passive euthanasia. In history, since euthanasia was opposed, orthothanasia was performed to save someone from extreme pain. Suetonius was a Roman historian who first used the term euthanasia. In recent past, Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 1984 by approving “mercy killing” Bill from two-third majority of Parliament. This legitimation was followed by Washington, California, Vermout, Oregon and many other states. To taper the arguments, this essay will deal with moral values and logics. There is no doubt in the fact that legalization of euthanasia will help in preserving the dignity of patients suffering intolerable pain and save abundant health and financial resources but the acknowledgment of its dark consequences including increased suicide rate and discredit of universal law called “sanctity of life” patently indicates that euthanasia should not be legalized in Western countries.

As proven by several credible studies, legalization of euthanasia will result in an elevated suicide rate. People in favor of its legislation claimed that it will reduce the suicides because everyone would have the right to end their lives. They can choose to die or live on basis of their circumstances. So, when they would have this much freedom on their lives, they would not prefer to kill themselves. However, a study published in Southern Medical Journal showed contrary results. It was conducted when a debate regarding legislation of mercy-killing started in California. The researchers took data from states like Washington, Oregon and Vermont where assisted suicide was legal. The aim of this research was to analyze the relation between overall suicide (both assisted and unassisted) and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). It concluded that there was a 6.3 percent increase in overall suicide rate by the legalization of mercy-killing. Thus, it depicts that unassisted suicides were increased as well. Though it is accepted that situation is not similar in all states but this research conveys the fact that by permitting euthanasia, the graph for suicide rate cannot be brought down. Moving on, this information can be extended to the idea that legislation of euthanasia will induce suicide ideation among people especially those who are suffering from depression and other mental health issues. Suicide ideation is a feeling or thought associated with planning or committing suicide. A study estimated that 60 percent of suicides, in general, are committed by people who are facing some mental disorder. Since, this study shows a general trend of suicides so if euthanasia gets legalized in western states then, in the light of above study, one could reasonably think of its dark consequences.

Further, to observe the association between depression and euthanasia, a research was carried out in Netherlands. 138 cancer patients were chosen for this purpose who had an expected life span of 3 months or less in the time stretch of 1999 to 2003. Firstly, all these patients were tested for having “depression mood”. 32 out of 138 people were diagnosed with depression. Once this test was done, the results for the request of merciful release were recorded. Out of 32, 22 patients (thirty percent) requested for mercy-killing. Thus, these statistics, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology clearly deduced that people who were suffering from depression were 4.1 times more likely to ask for euthanasia as compared to other terminally ill patients. The reason for incorporating this study in this essay is that euthanasia is legal in Netherlands and it was the first country in the whole world to formally legalize it. In light of above findings, it can be inferred that Europe should not legalize mercy-killing.

The principle called “sanctity of life” will be violated by regular legislation of euthanasia. According to this principle, human life is sacrosanct and its sacredness is comparable to the sacredness of God. Ergo, human beings are superior to other forms of life. As stated in Bible: 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.' Human beings are no different from God in fact are “images of God”. Thus, killing them due to any reason or through any way is considered immoral and equivalent to demolish the holiness of life. Also, all forms of life on earth are due to their Creator’s consent and they will die according to His will. So, if people get euthanized, it would be against their God’s will and would be regarded as a denial of His right on their lives. Due to this, euthanasia is a huge debate especially under the branch of bioethics. Bioethics consider euthanasia, abortion and other issues like these unethical. In addition, the opponents of euthanasia assert that by practicing mercy killing the status of someone would shift from “somebody” to “nobody”. This transition from “somebody” to “nobody” is a problematic discourse and a harm to dignity of life. Despite knowing the fact that through merciful release one can protect themselves from prolonged unenduring discomfort, care is proclaimed to be the only cure from pain and disease. Another point which is raised against euthanasia is that if it gets legalized, people will consider the life of patients, who are in the vegetative states of their diseases, worthless and unimportant. At the time when a patient needs support and care of his family and other people, he will face such harsh realities which will make him a victim of hopelessness. Hence, the general rule that all men are equal will shatter and an imbalance will be generated in society ruining the stability of life.

Next, to unveil the views of physicians about euthanasia, a research was conducted in Washington in which 938 people participated. Explicit terms like euthanasia, physician assisted suicide etc. were replaced with less straightforward phrases so that participants respond practically without any emotional pressure. Out of all the respondents, 48 percent favored that euthanasia is ethically unjustifiable while 42 percent physicians said that it is not. Physicians are usually expected to favor merciful release due to its practical significance but these statistics elucidates that ethical outlook of euthanasia is one of the most dominant aspects regarding it. This implies that mercy killing is not even in the interests of physicians because ethics come as a major barrier against its regular legislation. This is why it is advocated that euthanasia should not be legalized in all western states.

If assisted suicide gets legalized, patients suffering from incurable diseases can opt to die with dignity which will preserve their integrity saving them from a life with affronts. Previously, it was thought that a person who spends his life performing good deeds end up with a dignified death by the virtue of his life. But with this sense, there comes another concept called badluck. According to this, one can still face a disgraceful death due to poor luck even after spending a virtuous life. So, there is no point of relying on a righteous life for a noble death. It is advocated that the only possible solution to the issue of “death with indignity” is euthanasia. The death with indignity can be defined as a process of dying in which the patient is either unconscious or completely dependent on others bearing an unending pain. Since human life is precious and is as sanctified as God thus its worthiness should be protected because a death without dignity would be a great disrespect to this sanctification. Therefore, euthanasia should be legalized so that it can serve as a measure to conserve this holiness of human life.

Besides, the term “euthanasia” belongs to Greek origin. Its proponents support euthanasia by demonstrating its origin in which ‘Eu’ means good while ‘thanatos’ means death. As its meaning indicates, euthanasia is a positive term. Its legislation can save several people from pain, suffering and hence humiliation. The reason due to which merciful release is considered a better alternative as compared to having a lifeless body with a heart bumping only through external intervention is that while performing any kind of euthanasia, it is made sure that the process is less painful unlike the treatment. Additionally, the medicines and pain-killers used in the treatment does not solely benefit the patient in fact they can have multiple side-effects as well which ruins the status of human life making it unconsecrated. Consequently, euthanasia should be legalized all across Europe. It is clear that legislation of euthanasia will save the honor of dying one but the pitfalls associated with it are not insignificant enough to ignore. As far as the debate of mercy-killing under ethics is concerned, ethics on one side does not allow a death without dignity but on the other side, it does not even justify the transformation of someone into no one. This transformation is against the consent of God. This sort of contradictions between ideas makes euthanasia a contentious subject. The conception of “death with dignity” is against disability right groups according to which legislation of euthanasia will create a distinction among healthy and disable people forcing them to do assisted suicide. These consequences are unavoidable and will lead to the deaths as well as mental health issues of millions. For illustration, Oregon, a state located on western coast of Europe, legalized euthanasia in 1997. There, in an instance, a large number of people were compelled to take lethal drugs to end their lives because chemo therapy was quite expensive for the insurance company. Ethics, in any case, does not allow this kind of helplessness of patients however if mercy-killing becomes legal, these after-effects would be unavoidable.

Ample amount of health and financial resources could be saved by legalizing euthanasia but this conservation demands death of millions. Terminally-ill patients are usually on life support through the aid of equipment in hospital or at home. For example, paralysis patients, cancer patients, patients in comma, patients on ventilator etc. require a large amount of health resources ranging from medicines/drugs to advance medical and surgical machineries. Their life is going on due to these external interventions. All these sort of life supports are highly expensive but are the only way to keep them alive. An article approved by Cancer.Net Editorial Board contains the statistics regarding expected number of breast cancer patients in US in 2019. According to this article, there is high expectancy of diagnosis of breast cancer in women. And the number of estimated deaths due to breast cancer are 42,260 (41,760 women and 500 men). This is a large number. All these deaths would not occur immediately after diagnosis. Obviously, all these patients will be treated in the best possible way to save their lives. But then due to their critical stage, they will ultimately receive life support in the form of medicines or other external interventions. In this process, copious resources will be consumed. But their outcome would not be the desired one i.e. all these 40,000 plus patients will die. So, if Europe permits assisted suicide, all these abundant resources could be saved and can even be spent on patients who can be cured through immediate treatment.

Another perk of its legislation is that it will strengthen the economy through preservation of financial resources. Henceforward, these logistics recommend that Europe should legalize mercy killing. Nevertheless, if mercy killing becomes rightful in Europe, patients who are close to the state of being terminally ill or already are would not be treated with much care. This will weaken patient’s trust on his/her doctor. In this way no one could get a proper treatment or atleast could be satisfied by their treatment. A study conducted in Netherlands to study physicians’ responses on euthanasia concluded that among other doctors, most of the psychiatrists favored euthanasia. Henceforth, it is evident that if a legal code regarding mercy-killing is made, most of the psychiatrists will give up on their job of bringing people with severe depression, addiction and other mental problems back to life as they would accept their patients’ requests for euthanasia. The reason why psychiatrists are more likely to euthanize their patients is that in mental health issues, the chance of recurrence is greater as compared to other health problems due to which doctors have to put repeated efforts for the rehabilitation of their patients. But at some point, they will stop struggling and perform their patient’s euthanasia. Moreover, by legalization of merciful release death tourism will be promoted. Death tourism is a practice in which people (potential candidates) travel to the states where euthanasia is legitimate so that they can kill themselves lawfully. Tourism is already contributing much to the economy of Europe, so if death tourism gets started then it would generate another debate regarding Europe’s economic strategy which is camouflaging the commodification of human life. Also, being super powers and center of technological advancement, each law in the states of Europe has a great impact on other countries. Consequently, euthanasia should not be officially authorized in Europe.

Concludingly, although mercy killing can save many lives through conservation of ample resources and protect human dignity, euthanasia should not be legalized in Europe because it will pose a great threat to sanctification of human life and raise suicide rate. Being a highly debatable topic, an essay on euthanasia cannot incorporate all possible perspectives of this discourse. Therefore, this essay contains some limitations. Firstly, this article deals with the topic of euthanasia in the context of Western culture only. This is because mercy killing is legal in some of the Western states and its outcomes clearly condemns the legalization of merciful release in remaining states. Secondly, ethics and rationality in terms of practicality are the primary focus of this writing because these two aspects are themselves diverse enough to be discussed. Religion which is an important perspective is beyond the scope of this essay due to of its broadness. Thirdly, Asia and in particular Pakistan has not been discussed in this paper due to the presence of huge religious barriers in the way of euthanasia’s jurisdiction in our country. To address all these religious hurdles and other complexities, a complete debate on religion is required. Even with the aforementioned limitations, this research essay deals with logistics and morals focusing on both claims and counter-claims equally. These themes make this essay extremely useful and constructive. Also, all research that has been quoted here is highly accurate and trustworthy because they have been conducted in the states where euthanasia is legal. Thus, their results, being true and concise, cannot be challenged. This tells that if Europe legalizes mercy killing, its effects would be penetrating enough to reach and harm people in Asia as well. By addressing both sides of the argument, it can be concluded that the merits of euthanasia are significant but the demerits of its legalization are way more persistent and inexorable.