Why Euthanasia Should Be Legal: Analysis of Arguments

Voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide has been a global debate for many years. One of the main questions being posed in this essay is why euthanasia should be legal? Whether or not there should be limits to our personal autonomy? Personal autonomy refers to the right and ability to be the master of one’s own body and choices, without external manipulation or influence.

The Argument in Favour of Why Euthanasia Should Be Legal

Generally those protesting for lethal injections hold the belief that withholding such a right is a violation of human rights, and people should have the ability to die in dignity and cease intense pain. The opposing argument is more complex. There are a number of different perspectives taken in which prematurely taking your own life is regarded as being wrong. For example, religious views that believe life is a god-given gift, the consideration of a doctor’s oath to do no harm, as well as the risk that people who didn’t truly want to die were killed.

There are a number of different ethical theories and principles surrounding this debate, both for and against the legalisation of euthanasia. The first theory that goes against euthanasia is the Sanctity of Life. This involves the idea that life should be respected and appreciated as the most valuable thing on Earth. This theory goes hand in hand with the religious view that life is a gift from God, and we can not end a life on our own terms. The Principle of Ahimsa is a Buddhist prohibition against euthanasia, as basically an overriding belief to “do no harm”. This theory ties to the physician’s role as healer, as in the original Hippocratic Oath, doctors swore to “do no harm”. The expectation of physicians to administer a lethal injection goes totally against this oath, and many believe it is unreasonable to make physicians agents of death. It disrupts the patient-doctor trust, and can be traumatic to the doctor with the responsibility to purposely take another person’s life even if it were consensual.

On the contrary, the aforementioned right to autonomy is a strongly argued point for both sides of the euthanasia debate. Most people live with the desire to have control of themselves - whether that be in decisions such as career, love life or even personal medical treatment. The illegality of assisted suicide is seen as a limit to personal autonomy. However, it can be argued that personal autonomy is, and should stay limited; people cannot do anything they want to do. People cannot take things from other people, people cannot kill other people, etc. and this makes the world a safer place and can overall be seen as a positive thing.

In favour of legalisation, the Principle of Mercy refers to the concept of ending one’s pain and suffering, which promotes the use of lethal injection in such extreme cases in which the patient in question is in agony that cannot be remedied any other way. Similarly, the value of Death with Dignity resents the concept of a person spending their last days in immeasurable pain and/or hooked up to a variety of machines only delaying what is inevitable. A perhaps more impersonal perspective is the consideration of funding the maintenance of dying people. The cost of a lethal injection is only a few dollars, compared to an annual cost of $1.2 million to $1.2 billion to care for those in vegetative comas. If a terminally ill person, costing over $1000 a day in intensive care, wishes to die, it can be argued that it should be allowed and the funds reallocated elsewhere.

A Real Life Example in Which Euthanansia Was Withheld

This is the case of Jackie Cole. Cole was in a coma after suffering a massive stroke as well as bleeding in the brain, and had previously made it clear that she didn’t want to be kept alive artificially. Her husband sought legal permission to remove life support and let Jackie go. He was not successful in gaining permission and so Cole remained comatose. Miraculously, six days later, Cole awoke and began the journey of recovery. Miracles cannot be expected in every case, however this is a clear example of a time where hasty use of euthanasia would have removed the chance of rehabilitation.

A different world example sourced from “DevonLive”, a news station in England, is the case of 40 year old Michael Parkins from Plymouth in England. Parkins was terminally ill and doctors had predicted that he may only have had weeks to live, and that these weeks would be a slow, painful demise. After this statement, Parkins planned to relocate to Switzerland where euthanasia is legal in order to end his own life. Doctors in the UK, however, are not legally allowed to refer patients to assisted suicide clinics, and so his wishes were impossible. As a result, Parkins took things into his own hands and jumped from a multi-level carpark, suffering multiple injuries in the fall. He was rushed to hospital where he was eventually taken off life support while surrounded by family members.

Conclusion

In this particular debate of whether or not euthanasia should be legal, I am on the affirmative side; if the patient is competent and has either a terminal illness or is in debilitating pain, I believe they are entitled to the decision of ending their life. This is because I believe it is more inhumane to allow a person to suffer than it is to painlessly end their suffering. In this report, I strived to remain open minded and considerate of the opposition, as well as unbiased whilst discussing both sides of the argument, which I think allowed me to not only gain a deeper understanding of the other side, but also give an informative insight into the issue on a broad scale.