Euthanasia in the Philippines

The miracles of the increasing availability of medical technology are a tremendous intervention in saving
human lives. But they can also bear out a curse by prolonging the dying process of a gravely ill patient at the cost of
great suffering and expense. The cost of futile life-prolonging treatment is often exorbitant, but still ends up
hopelessly towards death. This circumstance just forces the patient to a miserable existence. Thus, it is important to
consider the right of a dying person to remain in charge of his body, choosing when to fight for his life and when to
allow him to die, even though it is the sole responsibility of the physician to keep him alive. Euthanasia benefits this
choice of the patient to consult to his death in order to relieve the excruciating pain from incurable and terminal
diseases; however, the legalization of this in the Philippines is contradicted by religious communities.
Euthanasia is a word coined from Greek in the 17th century meaning well death. Euthanasia, then, is
inducing the painless death of a person who is severely debilitated for reasons assumed to be merciful, either
through voluntary, nonvoluntary, involuntary means (Hendin, 2004). Voluntary euthanasia involves the consent of the
patient to perform the treatment. Nonvoluntary euthanasia is conducted when the permission of the patient is
unavailable maybe because of state of coma, or instances when babies are born with significant birth defects.
Involuntary euthanasia is seldom practiced for it is performed against the will of the patient. All these types of
euthanasia applies methods such as removing the life-supporting devices, injection of drugs, inhalation of carbon
monoxide or helium, dehydration, and intake of suicide pills. However, moral and ethical methods, such as voluntary
euthanasia, and methods not involving painful outcomes are the ones commonly practiced. These methods are
done to patients who are terminally-ill; that is patients who have impossible chance of recovering from the disease,
or if ever cured, does not function in good health and will be under vegetative state.
In the Philippines, euthanasia is not legal for the reason of the predominance of the religious communities
which hinders the ratification of the Euthanasia Bill. Also, the majority of the Filipinos value the Christian doctrine as
the foundation of their conviction. However, it is still practiced by some, mostly are from the poor segment of the
country. They have no other choice but to use euthanasia to stop the patient from suffering, and to avoid expenses
on medical treatments. Additionally, medical technologies and professionals here in the Philippines are not entirely
advanced. Common Filipino physicians may have inadequate skills to efficiently cure complicated diseases. If
medications reach to the point of life-or-death matter, operations, at times, result to failure, making all treatments
paid by the relatives of the patient result in vain.. Likewise, medical technologies are not completely available to cure
various diseases; if ever it is, it will cost a tremendous price.
The stand of the Church that euthanasia is still immoral and unethical is the prime reason of the
unacceptability of this. According to the most recent version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2003), All
forms of suicide and euthanasia remain strictly prohibited Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral
law Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. And according to Pope
John Paul II, Euthanasia must not be called false mercy, and indeed a disturbing perversion of mercy. True
compassion leads to sharing anothers pain. It does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear. Also, some
people believe that compassion is no guarantee against doing harm. A physician who does not know how to relieve
a patients suffering may compassionately, but inappropriately, agree to end the patients life. Patient autonomy is
just an illusion when physicians are not trained to assess and treat patient suffering. The less they know how to treat
these suffering, the more they favor assisted suicide or euthanasia; and the more frequent they do it, the more they
prescribe it. Until, then, the only choices left for patients become continued agony or a hastened death. A part of the
Hippocratic Oath states that physicians must value the life of their patient and never suggest anyone a way towards
suicide. Under the Philippine Constitution of 1987 (Article II, Section 11), the State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Therefore, euthanasia contradicts both the Hippocratic Oath
and the Philippine Constitution.
In contrast, Euthanasia gives terminally-ill patients a medical treatment of choosing between a prolonged life
of agonizing pain or a peaceful death. It is not a compulsory treatment, in which every patient who has little or no
chance of recovering will have to choose euthanasia. Euthanasia is granted with the will of the patient or the
surrogate of the patient and it is only upon their request that physicians perform it. The legalization of euthanasia
does not aspire to violate the ethical and moral code, but rather just provide an option to those who need it. For
example, to consider that financial cost of keeping a person alive being dependent on a life-support machine is very
enormous, and that 80% of the Filipinos live in poverty, how can the family afford keeping the patient on life support,

knowing that the patient will be in vegetative state, no matter how he was kept alive? With the statistics that only 2
out of 10 terminally-ill patients survives because of proper medication, it is then illogical to hope for the patient with
no enough money for medication to recover from severe diseases; this then results to euthanasia. And since
euthanasia takes place anyway, even without the ratification of the bill, it is better to legalize it so that it will be
practiced under careful guidance, doctors will have to report these activities, and so that physicians will not have any
responsibility over the death of the patient.
Euthanasia, even though contradicted by religious communities, still has to be legalized for the benefit of the
incurable and hopeless patients, including their relatives. This legalization will improve further the system of
planning, performing, and recording of euthanasia, since it takes place inevitably. Likely, the issue regarding the
ratification of the Euthanasia Bill of the Philippines is still on its formative period, in which there is no consistency
whether where the topic will go further in the future. With both sides reflected in the preceding paragraphs, it is
evident that, it could become a loud argument, once again, especially between the State and the Church.
The Ateneo de Davao University on Wednesday advanced in its quest to become the countrys best debate team as
it overwhelmed St. Louis University in the semi-finals of ABS-CBN News Channels debate program Square Off: the
CVC
Law
Debates.
Hosted by Twink Macaraig, Square Off: The CVC Law Debates features law school teams, with legal luminaries
and
incumbent
trial
court
judges
as
adjudicators.
The episodes topic covered the classic life and death issue of the legalization of euthanasia in the Philippines with
St. Louis University arguing for legalization and Ateneo de Davao University taking the opposite side.
St. Louis Universitys first speaker Analyn Avila defined euthanasia as the intentional act of causing the death of a
severely
ill
and
dependent
human
person
for
his
or
her
alleged
benefit.
To provide the proposal for euthanasia is probably the most challenging task for law students. Nonetheless we will
take the challenge in the hope that the matter will be squarely given consideration, Avila said.
Kris Dyan Cayabyab of St. Louis argued that legalizing euthanasia would remove the potential financial burden taken
on by families whose relatives are clinically dead but remain hooked up to machines.
Our reverence for life should not be dependent on this sort of martyrdom that we continually make it difficult for
everyone to prolong everything. We lift financial constraints because even the patient would not want to further
compromise other family concerns just so a life can be prolonged by science far beyond meaning or sensibility and
when it is really impossible to maintain a rather costly concern such as this, Cayabyab said.
The winning team from Ateneo de Davao, however, used arguments such as the right to life, possibility of abuse and
premature
death.
It [euthanasia] would undermine the physician-patient relationship as it will create fear and distrust as doctors will
no longer be seen as healers but also as killers, said Hanniyah Sevilla of Ateneo de Davao University.
Do you agree that suicide is not punished in the status quo? Of course I also assume that you know that giving
assistance to suicide is punishable because youre performing an overt act leading to the death of an individual. Isnt
it that pulling the plug is an overt act? Because you are actually using your own hands, added Christine Ferrer of
Ateneo
de
Davao
University.
Adjudicator Atty. Rodel Cruz, Senior Partner of CVC Law, recognized the brilliant exchange between the two
universities.
I think all the debaters tonight deserve our warmest congratulations. They all deserve to be in the final four, he
said.
Adjudicator and former Senate President Frank Drilon was deeply impressed by the debate, saying that the semifinalists
have
great
potential
as
the
countrys
legislators
in
the
future.

The debates were very substantial. I was in government for 21 years and if you were congressmen, senators, or
cabinet members, maybe we would have better legislation and better policies coming out of this administration, he
said.
Ateneo de Davaos Hanniyah Sevilla, first of the three speakers on the negative side, was hailed as best speaker by
the
adjudicators.
Christine
Ferrer,
also
from
Ateneo,
got
the
texters
choice
award.
The Ateneo de Davao University is now set to compete in the finals against Arellano University next Wednesday.

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...

It frees up hospital beds and resources

Terminally ill patients, or those in a permanent vegetative state, can take up valuable hospital beds for those who do want
to get better. If they do not want to live, then they should not be allowed to take the beds and care of those that do.
Long term palliative care for the terminally ill is a huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources. Why waste
these precious resources on someone who has expressed a desire to die, when they could be improving the life of
someone who wants to live?
In addition, these resources could be re-allocated to further the research of the specific disease the patient is suffering in
order to allow future generations to either not have the disease or increase the quality level of care for future patients of
this disease by alleviating the symptoms of the disease at the very least.
In addition, if the patient is an organ donator and the organs are healthy, it may save up several lives which are ultimately
invaluable.
working in the care system with people with dementia i have to say in many cases its cruel to keep them alive, we are
kinder to our pets when so ill. This is an awful disease which takes any quality of life away, One lady i know has been bed
ridden for 5 years unable to communicate , move her limbs or anything if the nazis had done this to people it would be a
war crime. This is not about god or any other belief its about common sense. Everyone should have the right to say while
they are still of good mind if they get this or another illness at a certain stage they have their life ended,
What i see every day is slow often distressing painful deaths which is no more than cruelty,we really have to change the
way we think

No because...

Just because beds in hospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die! Some can be cared for at
home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would we draw the line? Is treating the
elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their lives anyway? I think that to describe palliative
care as a "huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources" is rather harsh! Im not sure that families of the
terminally ill would agree with you there.

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...

It ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill

Terminally ill means terminally ill. This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will die eventually
regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy. This time and money could be used to
help others or cure others who aren't mortally wounded or diseased.
The rebuttal presupposes that an individual needs to wait for a hypothetical existence of a treatment being developed on
an assumption that decisions that are finalized is not a justification for terminating a patient's life at one's explicit consent.
If decisions made in your life were to be stagnated each and every time in order for an opportunity to arise everytime, the
basis for this principle would not be a good one at the very least.
Wait one day, wait one week, wait one month, we'll stay back and see. An indecisiveness for something which might not
exist within one's lifetime would make a claim for which things ought to be reversible or decisions ought to be remade in
order for things to be "controlled" in a manner. In this respect, of the practice of "Euthanasia", death is the ultimate goal of
avoidance and thus a finalized decision of upholding pain until the very last minute of life in respect to waiting for a
treatment outweighs the ultimate outcome of death. The opposition makes a claim that reversibility of a decision that may
be regretted later due to it being finalized is better on these grounds, however, if life was controllable in all aspects and
under all possible circumstances, we were able to scroll back on our decisions, what meaningful would arise out of the
circumstances for which our decisions are made on? What would the product of our actions, time and energy be? Aren't
these decisions philosophically what identify us as who we are even to the extent of a life or death situation? Also, even if
a cure was possible, what complications will arise thereafter? What if the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has
already lived a long healthy life? It cannot be justified to deem that waiting for something which might or might not exist in
a future to occur outweighs the prospect of pain. Wait for a miracle "cure", wait for a revolutionary science "discovery" to
solve our problems, wait for a technological "innovation"...this line of thought may be wise in some situations but not
necessarily in the case of Euthanasia.

No because...
The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts the possibility of new
treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...

It relieves suffering
If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow
them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms often have unpleasant side effects or may
leave the patient in a state of sedation. It is not as if they are really living during this time; they are merely waiting to die.
They should have the right to avoid this kind of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way.
Appeal to "naturalism" is a very bad argument. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid having rain fall on
us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to live a civilized life where we do not
simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the "natural conclusion" of our actions. Suffering may a part of the
human condition and it can be argued to be useful in preventing us from self-destructive habits, physical dismemberment
or physiological damage due to negligence of the body, etc. However, does that justify that we ought to endure a pointless
pain just because it must be part of life's experience? Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we should start treating
others unfairly, or just because sex is a part of the human experience, that we have an obligation to perform intercourse.
Also, if an argument of biological existence is made, then why is it limited to humans in the treatment of this manner?
What is the difference between existence and living? Do people want to live in a state where they cannot progress,
breathe, talk, hear, see, suffer from paralysis and slowly die? People do want to live, and merely existing is not enough. If
we just had to exist, then why do we need a spectrum of other human experiences? Why do not we just limit ourselves to
sleep, eat, reproduce, etc? There is more to life than existing in such a state.

No because...
There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life's experience. Also medication
can be improved to help a person's quality of life and make their deaths as humane as possible. Futhermore even if a
person is in a state of sedation they are still biologically existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live
their life until its natural conclusion.
i think that it is our fate and nothing happens in theis world just like that for no reason. Everything in this world happen for
a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she may not realise it.
You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good thing for him or her ?? Bu
toyu never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree that murder is something really bad and is not
allowed so how come killing a person is the right thing?? Even if that person is suffering.What would you call it? Wouldn't
you
call
it
killing.
I will say that life is something complicated. It is not something that we could ever realise and understand 100 percent but
each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone would die i definitly don't have the choice to choose
whether to kill that person or not even if he or she is suffering. Maybe yes a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering
and have a relaxed life but sometimes and mostly always things don't always turn out to be exactly like what we want. So I
think it depends on how a person believes in God if he or she have faith in God then they will know that this is the will of
God and will take it. We can't say that there is a life with no suffering each and every person in his life have suffered in
their life but it is how you deal with them that matters and not to run away because you're afraid to face them or afraid that
you would suffer because they alwaus say that you will always face your biggest fears in your life. So i would never kill a
person and take the blame for it my entire life as i might someday sit alone and ask myself a question, did i kill my
mother??

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...

Right to choose
Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by the fact that suicide is
legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives unaided. Legalising euthanasia would
redress
this
balance.
Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime.

Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out decisions about
themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path, where they live, whether to bear
children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide for themselves whether they die in a hospital or
in their own home? Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off
dead or alive? Their disease makes them so crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. A quote from The Independent in
March 2002 stated that So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no
further questions [[ The Independent" Editiorial Make euthansia available for those who can choose it Accessed 03.09]].
Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary restraints on human rights are strongly discouraged.
The opposition makes an arguement of inclination. However, it ought to be rejected that people, intuitions or legal entities
should advocate the death of an individual. The life an individual rests in the considerations of the consequences of an
individual's actions. If we deny them this right, we make a claim that we own their life. We own the product of their time,
energy and utility. This is something we must never fall into. Although it may be said from a financial sense, things aren't
good; we do attempt to put human life in an invaluable scale. It may be said that human beings are precious for various
reasons, but the value of an individual's life can never be determined by the state, another individual or entity. Even
though life insurances are in place, the individual's self-assigned worth is what gives the individual its own worth for its
very own existence.

No because...
The right to choose is not something which our legal system has "accepted" we all have. This is far from the truth. Suicide
was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable offence it is of course impossible to punish
a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of society.
Furthermore the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Diane Pretty that a person does not has a
recognised right to die as stated in this quote: "No right to die, whether at the hands of a third person or with the
assistance of a public authority could be derived." [[ BBC Online News "British woman denied right to
die"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1957396.stm
Unfortunately giving any sort of right to chose also denies a right to choose for others. If Euthanasia is allowed then
people who are terminally ill, critically injured or simply old may well feel compelled to choose and option they dont really
want to take. If Euthanasia is allowed in some cases these people whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a
lot of money may well feel that they are not worth the cost of keeping them alive. This is not something we would want
anyone to feel as in essence it takes away their freedom of choice on the matter.

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...

Relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate beyond recognition
A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste away, appearance changes
and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer recognising family and friends. Motor
neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs, having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing.
Those suffering with Huntingtons Disease develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational thought and poor
concentration. Involuntary movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may
also occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a shadow of
their former self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a mother, father, brother or
sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last wish.

No because...
Even if their relatives may be suffering from watching their loved one's condition detiriorate, they have no right to either
decide or put pressure on a person to end their own life because of their own sufffering. Just as it may be the individuals
right to die it is also the right of the individuals right to "rage against the dieing of the light" with their support of their family
so
to
speak.
While it may be an 'agony to watch a loved one deteriorate' many will also want to spend as long as possible with their

loved ones, and more than likely a family will be split on the matter meaning that the views of the family would have to
have no impact on the matter.

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...

It reduces the spread of diseases

When a person is sick, there a chance that a contagious agent exists within the host. The longer the duration that the
individual is kept alive, it may increase the risk of others being affected by the disease if the individual is not handled
properly.

No because...
isn't that what a hospital has i mean many people are sick and have diseases which are contagious but they try to get
cured that's why they go to hospitals. This is not a reason for not keeping them alive because what if they actually get
cured and got the chance to start a new life. I don't think that it will REDUCE the spread of diseases becasue there are
other people in the hospital that may suffer from different diseases which may be contagious right? so does it stop on
terminally ill people that they have a contagious disease that's why they should be killed??

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...
Coma patients are not 'living until their natural end' because modern medicine has developed so we can support them
artificially. Perhaps it was God's will that they die, and we are interefering in this plan by treating them?
This point should be erased. The debate specifically says "Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?".
What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make
the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).

No because...
Patients that are in comas and have not indicated that they wish to die have the right to continue thier lives until the
natural end. Who are we to say that they should die when it is convenient to us? That should be left unto God to decide.
This
point
should
be
erased.
The debate specifically says "Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?".
What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make
the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...
The first argument was removed. An appeal to a dictionary or a definition does not make it right or justified in its position.
However, it may be speculated or conceived that it is not murder because the premeditated advancement of death by a

person of another has been consented to in principle thereby the choice being made is a deliberate one for which one's
right in its very own nature permits the condition to be moral.
Secondly for describing euthansia the Germans use the term Sterbehilfe which means "help to die" so while the person
and maybe society may be complicit in the "killing of a person" they are accessories and not the actual agents of the
killing as they are helping a person to die rather than determining that a person should die, something that would be
viewed as murder [[Collins lanugage dictionary]] .

No because...
There are strong proponents on both sides of the debate for and against euthanasia. The word euthanasia comes from
two Greek words, eu meaning good, and thanatos meaning death. Proponents of euthanasia believe it is everyone's
right to die at a time of their own choosing, and in a manner of their own choosing, when faced with terminal illness rather
than suffer through to the bitter end. Opponents argue that euthanasia cannot be a matter of self-determination and
personal beliefs, because it is an act that requires two people to make it possible and a complicit society to make it
acceptable .
They consider euthanasia the equivalent of murder, which is against the law everywhere in civilized society.So, we sould
maintain the respect for human life in a secular pluralistic society

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...
While religious morality may be precise on who sets decides when a person dies secular values also recognise if a person
is suffering unncessarilly they should be helped to eliminate that suffering. Futhermore a person may well be non religious
and resent the imposition of religious or secular values on them, values which they may not belive in. [[ Dr Adams
"Personal Story- Dignity in Dying"Accessed 1.06.2009]]
Additionally if this arguement is extended, certain individuals pick and choose biblical scripture (not wiping out the land of
a certainr ace) or selectively identify parts as something obselete (i.e. agricultural practices). If an individual does this, the
individual believes that there is a morality outside of religious morality above the standard for which the biblical or context
in which religion takes place and thus it is moot whether the bible says so or not.

No because...
Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human being, A principle stated
in the Quaran "[2.28] [Allah] will cause you to die and again bring you to life, then you shall be brought back to Him." This
surah states that if a creator has created an individual than it p.b.u.h will decide whether you live or die and you can not
take matters into your own hands.[[ University of Michigan "The Koran"http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?
type=simple&q1=life&q2=&q3=&amt=0&size=more
. This principle must be safeguarded by law, as moral absolutes of this kind are necessary for a functioning legal system.

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...
Whatever their reasons, a person should be allowed to do as they see fit. It is their life and they have the right to choose
how and when it ends.

No because...
The problem that I have always had with euthanasia is that terminally ill patients may choose to die through feelings of
guilt. They may feel guilty about the burden that they are putting on their families and choose to die for this reason alone.

Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?

Yes because...
Harold Shipman committed his crimes when euthanasia was illegal, which illustrates that psychopaths can commit crimes
whatever the legal situation. Legalising euthanasia would have no effect on the 0.000001% of society who do this sort of
thing.
In countries where euthanasia is currently legal, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, strict legal guidelines are in
place to ensure that the process does not include such problems. All patients who request euthanasia require the
diagnoses of at least two doctors to verify the terminal nature of their illness, and undergo psychological examination by
these doctors and often other experts to examine the reasons for their choice. It is not a situation of "Surely it is wrong to
give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die?"; it is one of two medical professionals
deciding whether the legal parameters allow them to enact the patients wishes. [[ Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs"A
Guide to the Dutch Termination of life on Request and Assisted Suicide (review procedures) Act April 2002"
p3 Accessed on 01.06.09]]
It is worth noting that, at the moment, doctors can effectively use euthanasia anyway. Firstly, under the "doctrine of double
effect", a doctor is allowed to give a patient, upon their request, a dose of painkilling medication which as a secondary
effect speeds up the death of the patient. [[ Alison McIntyre "Doctrine of Double Effect" Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy Accessed 01.06.09 ]]Secondly, all patients have both the right to refuse treatment, and the ability to make a
"living will", which doctors are compelled to consider if the patient is unable to express their wishes during illness. [[ Direct
gov
"Government,
citizens
and
rightsHow
to
make
a
living
willhttp://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/Preparation/DG_10029429 01.06.09]]

No because...
The prestigious position of doctors could quite easily be abused if euthanasia were to become legalised. A prime example
of this would be the late Dr Harold Shipman, who killed between 215 and 260 elderly women[[ Bonnie Malkin et al " Harold
Shipman in dictionary of biography"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-ofbiography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]] Vulnerable, ill people trust their doctor and if he confidently suggested a course of
action, it could be hard to resist. A patient and his family would generally decide in favour of euthanasia according to the
details fed to them by their doctor. These details may not even be well founded: diagnoses can be mistaken and new
treatment developed which the doctor does not know about. Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to
decide whether a patient should live or die? On the contrary, the majority of doctors would make well-informed,
responsible and correct decisions, but for those few like Harold Shipman, they can get away with murder, undetected, for
23
years.[[
Bonnie
Malkin
et
al
"
Harold
Shipman
in
dictionary
of
biography"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed
01.06.09]]