An Essay on a Patients Right to Die Euthanasia

The Right to Die

Some say that that society has reached some sort of point where dying, and the right to it, has become a form of consumer conflict where one common theme underlying these contemporary developments is the failure of a truly modem death ritual for both the dying and their loved ones. When someone goes through the dying process, many surrounding people cling blindly to traditions and funerary practices that they have been told where the right thing to do, for hundreds of years.

The merciless loss of control experienced by many terminally ill patients is often the modus operandi for most forms of euthanasia, as well as its research. The basic human rights of dying patients can easily be violated when they enter a state in which they lack the knowledge and ability to make there own decisions. This diminishes their dignity. How can a person have dignity if they can’t even leave their bed to go to the bathroom, or even inform someone that they need to?

Several forms of physical pain can be controlled with a complex use of certain drugs.

However, if one’s body has been so badly damaged by an illness that life is not worth living, should an individual’s desire to die be thwarted on a blind principal? Later in this paper, I will further this question by touching on the quality of life perspective. In accepted civilized society, patients have the right to know their medical condition, to choose or to reject procedures, to reject attempts to prolong life, and decide the nature of the disposal for their remains.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: Right To Die

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

They also have the right to vent their fears and frustrations in more emotional forms of treatment. Studies on people with cancer have shown that those who belong to a psychotherapy group have a tendency to survive almost twice as long as those who did not participate in a support group. These group members also often report less depression, anxiety and pain. However, in the final stages of such a merciless illness, such kindly measures are often simply not enough.

A Case for Euthanasia

There are at least two forms of suicide. One is emotional suicide, or irrational self-murder, in which, for all of its difficulties and sadness should ideally be prevented whenever possible. And then there is justifiable suicide, which is a coherent and planned exit from a painful state that will end in death anyway. People who support voluntary euthanasia often don’t even agree that the term “suicide” sits well in the context of justifiable suicide. Organizations like the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization (ERGO) have worked for over two decades to popularize other terms like iSself- deliverance. * The idea of self-deliverance comes from the notion that justifiable suicide delivers one away from needless suffering and the loss of personal dignity. Pro-euthanasia organizations struggle to popularize this term in an uphill battle.

The popular media tends to favor more dramatic terms like “assisted suicide.” Plus, one has to face the fact that the laws in most nations label all forms of human self-destruction as “suicide.” It should be noted that, in today’s world, attempted suicide is no longer treated as a crime in most countries. Giving assistance in suicide however remains to be a crime, except conditionally in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Uruguay, certain Australian states, as well as certain US states. With the exceptions of these places, the laws of the world generally punish assistance in suicide, but not attempted suicide, for both the mentally ill and the terminally ill alike. Even if a desperately ill person is requesting help to die for the most considerate reasons, and even if the collaborator is acting from the most noble of intentions, the act still remains a crime in most of the civilized world. Legal punishments for assisting suicide can range from minor fines to over a decade in prison. It is a prohibition that many individuals and organizations wish to change. In merciful societies, under the rule of law, there should be exceptions.

Origin and Validation

The word euthanasia comes from a combination of Greek words meaning “good death.” In today’s world, it is generally taken to mean doing something about achieving a good death. Self-deliverance, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or whatever one chooses to call it, the average supporter of the iSright- to-dies” usually justifies their position for such reasons as advanced terminal illness or severe physical handicap. The second is a fairly rare reason for suicide, since an immensely high percentage of impaired people eventually cope remarkably well with their afflictions. Advanced terminal illness however, usually causes intense and unbearable suffering to the individual who in turn seeks a merciful end to life.

Ethical Perameters

In the ideal cases of voluntary euthanasia, active or passive, a suffering person is a mature adult who has clearly made a well-considered decision to end their own life. Euthanasia should not be carried out at the first knowledge of a life-threatening disease, especially if reasonable medical help can potentially cure or at least slow down the terminal disease. Ideally, euthanasia is not merely about giving up one’s existence. Critics of those who believe in euthanasia often spread this common misconception. Many who believe in voluntary euthanasia claim willingness to practice it because they believe that life is precious and worth fighting for? When the fight is clearly without hope and only agony exists, many see a quiet end as the only option. A physician’s response to euthanasia attempts will always depend on the circumstances, even though, in the greater scheme, there is little a doctor can do about an eventual and legitimate suicide attempt. Still, many feel that it is still best to inform the doctor and hear his or her response. For example, the patient might be mistaken; perhaps part of a “terminal diagnosis* had been misunderstood.

It used to be that patients speaking about this subject were met with an aloofness and lack of feeling. In today’s more accepting climate, a surprising number of physicians will discuss potential end-of-life-actions if they are out of realistic alternatives. Besides, a suffering person must ideally make plans to exit this life in a way that tries not involving others in criminal liability or leaving them with feelings of guilt. Such intentions can include a form of statement or writing that obviates misunderstandings or blame. It also demonstrates that the departing person is taking full responsibility for their action. As mentioned earlier, assistance in suicide is a crime in most places, although a low percentage of such cases ever go before courts. Realistically though, cautious people who consider suicide or assisting in it, usually have to give much more consideration to their own directives than to the powers of society’s laws. Paramedics and legal officers tend to put a very low priority of investigation of suicide, especially when evidence indicates that the person was dying anyway. A note from the deceased person is said to lessen police interest even further. Detective and coroners will usually even walk away from the scene once they are satisfied that their subject was previously terminal.

Personal Quality of Life

Should a suffering, terminally ill person rather go into a hospice program and receive first-class pain management and comforting personal attention? Put bluntly, hospices try to make the best of a hard time, but do so with great skill and caring. Most right-to-die organizations support hospice work, even though hospice leaders oppose the right-to-die movement. Today many terminally ill people take the excellent benefits of home hospice programs, but still turn to death when their pain becomes too much. I personally have had relatives in the field of hospice nursing. Over the years, several hospice representatives have personally told me time and again, that their care is so wonderful that there is no need for anyone to ever consider any form of euthanasia. This statement is inaccurate.

Most, but not all, physical pain can today be controlled with the advanced use of drugs, but the point these nurses miss is that quality of life is vital to many people. If a body has been irredeemably destroyed by disease that it’s life is not worth living, should an individual’s decision to die be thwarted on blind principal? In many cases, the final days in hospice care consist of the most serious pain, where the patient is drugged into unconsciousness. If that way is acceptable to the patient, fine. But some people do not wish their final hours to be in that fashion. In an ideal world, there should be no conflict between hospice and euthanasia; both are valid options in a kind society. Both are appropriate to different people with differing values.

Religious Convictions

Another consideration is the theological question as to whether or not suffering ennobles us. Is suffering, and relating the Christian perspective of suffering (i.e.: the crucifixion), a part of preparation for meeting our creator? Is life merely gift from God as dictated in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? May only he take it away? If a person’s answers to these questions are yes, they should not be involved in any form of euthanasia, voluntary or otherwise.

However, those who don’t support euthanasia must consider that there are millions of atheists and agnostics, as well as other persons of varied belief systems. Ideally, they all have rights too. Even the Christians who do believe in euthanasia find ways to justify it by reasoning that their God loves them, and would not wish to see them in agony. They do not see their God as being so bitter as to refuse them paradise because they avoided unbearable pain. “Religious questions involving euthanasia and suicide must be individually resolved, with or without one’s spiritual adviser, and according to one’s belief.”

Conclusion

A step in awareness is the enactment of careful laws that permit forms of voluntary euthanasia. In the United States, the state of Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, allowing *limited physician-assisted suicide,” is an example of a start for public understanding. In ideal cases of merciful euthanasia, a
person makes a painstaking, well thought-out decision. Voluntary euthanasia is rarely carried out at the first knowledge of impending death, especially if medical help is available to treat the terminal disease. Voluntary euthanasia is an act of mercy, and therefore, preserves dignity with the
bestowment of final compassion.

Sources:

1. University Press (1979)
2. Huntington, Richard and Peter Metcalf. ?§Celebrations of Death. ? Cambridge: Cambridge
3. McCord, William. ?SDeath with Dignity;* The Humanist.?* January/February 1993: 26-29.
4. Spiegel, David. SLiving Beyond Limits: New Hope and Help for Facing Life-Threatening Illness. * Ballantine/Fawcett (1994)
5. Humphry, Derek. ERGO! Information Center. http://www.rights.org/-deathnet/ergo.html>
6. Reibstein, Larry and Daniel Klaidman. iSWeighing the Right to Die.?* Newsweek January 12,1997: 62
7. D.Hager, Mary and Rev. Lawrence Falkowski. iS1996 Report of the Task Force on Assisted Suicide. ?* http://www.dfms.org/newark/report.html> (1996)