Mya 1

Mya Harkness

Research Paper

2A British Literature

01 March 2018

Euthanasia has been a controversial issue for years debated with dissimilar views

bestowed in legal and ethical terms for doctors and patients. Whether we practice the intentional

ending of one’s life in order to end pain is still up for question. Pacholczyk states “If physician-

assisted suicide really represents a good choice, we need to ask: Why should only physicians be

able to participate”? Government officials should ban the practice and use of Euthanasia when

determining someone’s future. “For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal

substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of

euthanasia are not reported” (pereira). Though this may be a good choice for people who have

very severe cases, it doesn’t protect people who are euthanized without their consent.

Euthanasia comes in various forms, each of which brings a different set of rights and

wrongs to the topic. Let's start with Voluntary Euthanasia, which is at the request of the patient.

The request for euthanasia is supposed to be voluntary and the person requesting must clearly

and explicitly consent on their own. In addition to this their condition must be untreatable and

their pain must be unbearable. Though these parameters are set they are not clear enough and are

not always followed. Pereira states “Despite those safeguards, more than 500 people in the

Netherlands are euthanized involuntarily every year”. I believe voluntary euthanasia is

unnecessary because treatment and palliative care is available and it puts others at risk of
 Mya 2

someone making the decision to end their life for them. Though there may be extreme cases,

these extreme cases make bad law.

On the other hand, now we must take a look at involuntary and non voluntary euthanasia

which are both administered without explicit consent. Even though they are both administered

without clear consent, they do differ in the way that they are taken out. Involuntary euthanasia

refers to someone that is able to to consent but hasn’t provided it either because they don’t want

to die or because they weren’t asked. This could be considered murder, but in some cases this

would count as benefiting the patient because of what they diagnosed with. This could

undermine our confidence in doctors which will lead to a fear of doctors, nurses and hospitals.

How could we possibly go to the doctor feeling safe when at the snap of a finger your life could

be ended without you having a say so in anything. This will diminish the accreditation of all

healthcare providers.

Additionally, now we have non voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia is a

situation in which is the person isn’t mentally and emotionally able to make the decision and

can’t provide consent for reasons like being in a coma or having dementia. “you would be

interested in the physician-assisted death of a 74-year-old woman with dementia in the

Netherlands in 2016. The circumstances were so disturbing, even the Dutch regulatory body that

retrospectively reviews, and usually rubber-stamps, euthanasias could not countenance it.

The patient, referred to in official documents only as "2016-85," had made an advance directive

requesting euthanasia in case of dementia. But the directive was ambiguously worded, and she

was no longer able to clarify her wishes by the time she was placed in a nursing home - though

her husband did request euthanasia for her. Despite the lack of a clear expression from the

patient, a physician concluded her suffering was unbearable and incurable - though there was no
 Mya 3

terminal physical illness - and prepared a lethal injection”(Lane). In most cases if the patient

cannot consent someone close to the patient will however in other cases the physicians continue

without consent because they may feel that euthanasia is the patients only option and decide to

proceed with the injection.

Furthermore, let's go into depth about the safeguards and guideline set in place for

euthanasia. Safeguards couldn't be fused into any euthanasia laws to secure elderly, disabled,

impaired or helpless individuals from the weight to end their lives for the comfort of others.

Detailing is compulsory in every one of the locales, yet this necessity is regularly overlooked.

The contribution of medical caretakers gives rise to concern since every one of the locales,

except for Switzerland, require that the demonstrations be performed just by doctors. All wards

aside from Switzerland require a discussion by a moment doctor to guarantee that the sum total

of what criteria have been met before continuing with willful extermination. "After struggling

with mental illness for years, Cornelia Geerts was so desperate to die that she asked her

psychiatrist to kill her. Her sister worried that Geerts' judgment was compromised. The 59-year-

old was taking more than 20 pills a day, including antidepressants, an opioid, a tranquilizer, and

two medicines often used to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. But about a year later, on

October 7, 2014, Geerts received a lethal dose of drugs from her doctor. 'I know it was Cornelia's

wish, but I said to the psychiatrist that it was a shame that someone in treatment for years could

just be brought to the other side with a simple injection,' said her sister, Adriana Geerts, who

believes society should try harder to accommodate the mentally ill. Cases like Geerts' reveal how

difficult it can be to navigate the boundary between individual freedom and protecting vulnerable

patients when it comes to euthanasia." (Sun). Even though these guidelines are set they won’t
 Mya 4

always be followed which puts patient lives in jeopardy. It’ll be impossible to actually examine

each case before continuing on with the procedure.

Suicide is unpleasant so instead of saying assisted suicide they try to sugarcoat it with

less disagreeable terms to misguide you from its true meaning. “"Suicide" is distasteful, so they

promote "physician aid-in-dying," "death with dignity" and the "right to die." And yet all of these

mean taking action to end one's own life. The news media have largely adopted the assisted

suicide movement's terminology, so these euphemisms are worth unpacking here”(Byock).

Instead they make it seem like you are given some type of palliative care when actually they are

killing someone. If this whole practice was okay then why try to mislead people from what it

actually is?

One of the greatest contentions against willful extermination is the religious contention.

Most religious gatherings particularly Christianity conflicts with killing. The act of willful

extermination isn't right since it damages the rule that life is given by God. God doesn't endorse

of "hands that shed guiltless blood". Life originates from God. It is God's choice to give life and

to take it away. In the Bible, "shedding pure blood" is called kill. Most religions object to willful

extermination. Some of them completely deny it. Basically all religions express that the

individuals who end up defenseless through sickness or handicap merit extraordinary care and

assurance, and that appropriate end of life mind is a greatly improved thing than killing. Killing

and in addition kill, would be against God's requests, and would be an assault on the power of

God. human lives are unique since God made them. Accordingly human life ought to be ensured

and protected, whatever happens. We shouldn't meddle with God's designs by shortening human

lives.
 Mya 5

I am restricted to willful extermination since I trust it disregards the essential holiness of

all human life. I should concede that I am professional decision, however that position depends

on the conclusion that an embryo in the beginning periods of pregnancy isn't a living individual.

However wiped out or invalid, nobody can deny that a patient is as human and that his life is as

essential as anybody else's. These perspectives stem not from a specific religious conviction, but

rather out of a fundamental regard for human life anyplace and in any condition. Most supporters

of willful extermination keep up that they have faith in the fundamental sacredness and poise of

life, yet contend that completion the misery of in critical condition patients at their demand is

really a move which regards holiness of life. For them passing with nobility, rather than an

existence of agony and enduring, is more altruistic. In any case, such disputes appear to be

concerned more with the personal satisfaction than its holiness. As a result their case is that on

the off chance that we have to choose the two, personal satisfaction is more imperative than the

holiness of life. Consequently the to a great degree low personal satisfaction of an in critical

condition understanding out-weights the very sacredness of that life and legitimizes his or her

"benevolence" murdering.

Agony and enduring is one reason individuals bolster willful extermination. "Help with

discomfort treatment could or even would abbreviate life. However, it is advocated if the

intention is to comfort and alleviate torment. Giving sufficient measure of help with discomfort

treatment is additionally an approach to expand life. It decreases the patient's pain mentally and

physically. Going past the farthest point by overdosing the patient will harm the body and rushes

demise. For this situation, it is unsuitable in light of the fact that its will likely murder a man's

life and not to comfort. Treated torment does not mean free of torment; it implies that patients

and families can at present capacity and make the most of their constrained time. Palliative care
 Mya 6

can help beat it and, when it does, individuals get through the opposite side thankful for the days

or weeks they need to fix up associations with kin, guardians or companions, or to go through

important minutes with their grandchildren. Since we stay away from death, it is difficult to

comprehend what we may need when faced by its world. While considering passing in theory, it

may appear willful extermination is a decent route for Australia to head, however I am concerned

we are excessively made up for lost time with our "right" beyond words, not putting resources

into the framework that encourages us live and in addition conceivable before we bite the dust. I

concur there are issues with how Australians are passing on, however I figure access to great

quality palliative care can change that.

Did you ever consider what you would do once you were not any more ready to deal with

yourself? The agony and the misery that you may experience, and without your assent a

specialist chooses to pull the attachment on you. In spite of the fact that that might be what you

need, that would be known as human willful extermination. For what reason would somebody

need to legitimize a wonder such as this? Don't you esteem your life enough to would like to

remain alive?

In the event that killing were lawful, how might individuals consider specialists who

honed this type of crime? Specialists should be our healers and defenders of the wiped out and

incapacitated. We as patients would like to discover help and solace from our wellbeing doctors,

not fast judgment on who has the privilege to live in light of their condition. Something else to

investigate is the cost of the doing this. Enabling a specialist to help in the diminishing of a

patient is 100 times less expensive than attempting to keep them alive. This would take into
 Mya 7

account most Health Maintenance Organizations to make a benefit, as opposed to lose cash. On

the off chance that human willful extermination offers decision for the individuals who feel it is

the best for them, for what reason not for the individuals who would prefer not to take an interest

in this training. At that point this proposed enactment isn't tied in with advancing decision its

advancing demise. You say that the main individuals who have these rights are the "in critical

condition". Be that as it may, what precisely is an in critical condition individual. Numerous trust

that any sickness that may abbreviate life notwithstanding for a day is viewed as terminal

ailment. In the event that that is the situation pneumonia patients or anybody with an extreme

instance of chicken pox could be utilized as a part of the act of willful extermination. In spite of

the fact that this is could lead in to a religious verbal confrontation, don't you feel that a doctor

help in passing on is playing with God?

Work Cited

Ahsan, Ali. “Euthanasia Kills Sanctity of Life | Opinion.” The Harvard Crimson, 17 Dec. 1996,

www.thecrimson.com/article/1996/12/17/euthanasia-kills-sanctity-of-life-pbtbhree/.

Byock, Ira. "Think Twice about 'Death with Dignity'." Los Angeles Times, 01 Feb, 2015, pp.

A.19, SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

Cheng, Maria. "Doctors Clash Over Euthanasia for Mentally Ill." Jackson Sun, 26 Oct, 2017, pp.

n/a, SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

Gross, Kevin. "Belgian Twins Legally Euthanized." University Wire, 09 Dec, 2015, pp. n/a. SIRS
 Mya 8

Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

Kheriaty, Aaron. "Assisted-Suicide Laws' Contagious Effect." Washington Post, 22 Nov, 2015,

pp. A.27, SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

Lane, Charles. "Euthanasia for the Vulnerable." Washington Post, 25 Jan, 2018, pp. A.17, SIRS

Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

Lane, Charles. "Euthanasia's Slippery Slope." Washington Post, 20 Aug, 2015, pp. A.15, SIRS

Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

O'Morain, Padraig. "Is it Time we Talked about Euthanasia?" Irish Times, 26 Sep, 2017, pp. 3.

SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

Pacholczyk , Tadeusz. “Please Step Back From the Assisted-Suicide Ledge” Washington Post.”

SIRS Issues Researcher, 8 Oct. 2012, sks.sirs.com/webapp/article?artno.

Pereira, J. “Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: the Illusion of Safeguards and Controls.”

Current Oncology, Multimed Inc., 18 Apr. 2011,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/.

Polley, Helen. "Rage Against the Dying of what's Right." Australian (Canberra), 29 Dec, 2017,

pp. 10, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

Schadenberg, Alex. "A Dangerous Euthanasia Ruling." National Post, 07 Feb, 2015, pp.

A.13, SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.