Farah Abdelsalam

Rhet-1010
Spring 2019

Euthanasia

“Me Before You” is an exceptional movie directed by Thea Sharrock (Imdb, 2016). It

delves into the love story of Lou Clark, a uniform yet quirky gal, and Will Traynor, a wealthy

man who is paralyzed from the waist down. The audience was captivated and fascinated by the

love story until the main character, Will, decides to be euthanized. Euthanization or assisted

suicide is the process of intentionally ending a patient's life in order to alleviate persistent or

continuous agony. It is safe today that the audience were shocked or even appalled by the main

character’s decision. The movie “Me Before You” surprises the audience while simultaneously

raising questions or maybe even concerns about euthanasia. The process of euthanization might

sound unbelievable at first or even heartless. Some people may argue that it sends a bad message

to disabled people. People are also irked by the claim that the patients who choose to die could

have had a better chance at life if they recovered and that they chose to die because of their less

than ideal mental state; however, those are all misconceptions generated by the treatment of

euthanization as a taboo subject that cannot be discussed.

 Before discussing whether or not euthanization is an ethical or logical solution, one has to

understand when it started, when it is a viable option and who is permitted to opt for it.

Euthanasia is not a new process. Putting a human to rest in order to end their turmoil seems like a

logical or natural decision. For this reason, euthanasia has been around for a long time, from the

beginning of the 5th century to be exact. Before the introduction of Christianity, the Roman and

the Greek had no values that put importance on an individual’s life. Suicides were not looked

down upon and mercy killings were regularly performed (Dowbiggin, 2007). However, It might

be argued that euthanasia at the time was not as pain-free or humane as it is in current time, it is

also possible that there were not as many safeguards to minimize the chances of error.

Euthanasia is not legal in all countries; however, the countries that have euthanasia legalized

implement several laws or rules to try to ensure that the practice is not abused. The laws

implemented are not global, they differ from region to region, but they all mostly entail the same

prerequisites and ethics. The basic regulations for euthanasia which can be found in most

countries consist of three rules: the patient must have voluntarily requested to die, the patient

must have a terminal illness that has a very short life expectancy, the patient must be confirmed

to not have a mental illness or condition that hinders their judgment making ability ( “Regulation

of Euthanasia”, nd.). By looking at the second rule, it becomes apparent that the movie “Me

Before You” projected euthanasia inaccurately. The protagonist chose to die even though his

illness was not terminal, which cannot happen in real life, at least legally. Euthanasia, is not

closely related to suicide, in better words, it is not a waste of human life. People who are

expected to live cannot legally choose to be euthanized. Euthanasia should become legalized in

all countries because it saves patients and their families from suffering while helping the patient
preserve their dignity and it enables medical resources to be better distributed. Perhaps the most

important basis for accepting and legalizing euthanasia is the patient's benefit. it should not be

legalized for the monetary aspects, it should be legalized in consideration of the well-being of the

patients involved.

A patient's right to decide when to die gives them dignity and allows them to avoid

inevitable agony or a prolonged period of futile treatment. Euthanasia is not in disagreement with

human rights, quite the opposite actually because It saves patients and the patient's family from

futile medical treatments. Medical treatment is considered futile when it no longer has a chance

of curing the patient of their disease (S. Jecker, 2014). Medical professionals have means for

distinguishing terminally ill patients that are past the point of medical care; however, they

sometimes continue treating those patients despite the fact that some of those treatments may

bring large amounts of pain and discomfort to the patient, rendering their last days on earth

painful and unpleasant. Futile medical care should not be confused with palliative care which is

when a patient is expected to die so they are made comfortable according to their wishes and

given medicine to alleviate painful symptoms (“What are Palliative Care”, 2017). The Doctor

may sometimes be pressured by the patient or the patients family to continue with futile

treatment; however, sometimes treatment is continued because of a lack of any other options

(Willmott et al., 2016). In some cases, medical professionals are not even permitted to stop

treatment and start palliative care because it is considered to be illegal in some countries

(Rachels, 2012). In a number of unfortunate instances, corrupt medical clinicians might continue

with futile medical treatment because of monetary gains. In some countries, where medical
professionals are paid by the case, doctors may give false hope to patients and their family in

order to make more money of the futile treatment. Futile treatment does not just wear down the

patient and their family, but it also takes puts people's lives in danger. Patients being treated in

vain are taking up valuable bed space, meaning that other people in critical and urgent need of a

bed may not find one (N. Huynh, C. Kleerup, P. Raj & S. Wenger, 2014) . If euthanasia is

legalized in the rest of the countries, it would give patients an alternative to long-winded futile

treatment or waiting around for the inevitable and it would give a chance for critical case-

patients to be treated quicker. It should be stressed that if a patient wants to continue treatment,

even if futile, there is no liability on them. They should not, under any circumstances, be

pressured in any form to give up their bed because they terminally ill. This case only applies to

patients who would have chosen euthanasia but cannot due to it being illegal. Euthanasia can

also save a lot of resources on a larger scale.

Euthanasia may not only save the patient and their family from a lot of unnecessary hassle,

but it may do the same for health care resources by saving the expenses that would have been

spent on patients who would of opted for euthanasia. It is already established that some patients

may want to be euthanized but are unable to make that decision due to the legal liability on the

medical professionals involved, thus, creating costly traffic on much needed beds. The same

phenomenon repeats itself but on a much larger scale: the health care system. In many countries,

the health care system does not pay for the citizens medical bills. The patient has to pay them out

of their own pocket or have their private insurance company pay; however, in some countries,

the health care system actually pays for the citizens medical expenses. Canada is one of those

countries, a citizen can sign up for public health insurance which will pay for the majority of
their medical expenses (“Health Care in Canada”, 2017). Money, however, is not an infinite

source. It is a resource and it should be distributed responsibly. A large sum of money goes on

terminally ill patients who cannot opt for euthanasia under the law (Meyer, 2010). This large

sum of money could be spent on people who are in dire need of crucial medical procedures and

cannot afford it without the public insurance. Canada lifted the legal probation on medically

assisted euthanasia, this decision could possibly lower the annual health care spending

substantially. It should also be noted that this decision did not lower life expectancy since the

patients lives were only shortened by a few weeks or a month at most. Those few weeks

however, are quite expensive (J. Trachtenberg & Manns, 2017). It should still be considered that

many people may find value in prolonging their life. For example, a grandmother may want to

live as long as possible to see the birth of her first grandchild; although those few expensive

weeks may be calculated as without value to the government, they may mean a world of

difference to some families. Fortunately, this is why people get to decide if and when they want

to be euthanized. A law that decrees pressuring people into euthanization as second degree

murder should be instilled as a safeguard. Although euthanasia is completely optional and sounds

like a solution to many problems, people still worry about the message it sends.

People on the other side of the case may root against the legalization of euthanasia because

they have concerns about the message it would send to people, specifically to disabled people. It

is claimed that it sends the message that a disabled person's life is not worth living; however, this

is incorrect. People claim that euthanasia implies that the disabled are a burden and should opt

for euthanasia. Additionally, people feared the fact that there were no clear indications of when

euthanasia is a viable option and when it is not; it is not clarified is disabled people are
candidates for euthanasia (Davis, 2004). It is true, there are no clear cut examples of who should

get euthanasia and who should not; however, there are clear cut rules of when a person is

permitted to choose euthanasia. Those criteria permit people to get euthanasia but do not make it

an obligation. One of the criteria of an euthanasia candidate in Holland, for example, is that they

must be going through unbearable pain and there should be no other viable solution. Meaning the

patient has to have no chance of being cured or living with their predicament (“Background

About Euthanasia”, 2013). It should be understood that there are approximately 7 different

categories or types of disability: vision impairment, deafness, autism spectrum, physical

disability, brain injury, etc. (“Different Types of Disabilities”, nd.) Most of these disabilities do

not cause their owner pain. It, of course, may lower the quality of their life, but they are miles

away from making life unbearable; therefore, individuals with those types of disabilities are not

even permitted to opt for euthanasia. Even people with disabilities that cause them pain are

unlikely to opt for euthanasia because medical professionals generally do not want their patients

to be euthanized. They naturally try to avert death and view death as a failure (Willmot et al.,

2016).

Euthanasia only brings comfort for people who need it the most. It does not give people any

sense of obligation to end their life because it is generally discouraged and seen as a last resort.

No doctor wants to witness their patient perish. Euthanasia gives people a way out of futile

medical treatment or waiting around for an inevitable fate. It also saves a lot of money in the

healthcare system that is used to prolong the life of people that would rather not be alive.

Euthanasia should not be perceived as a waste of life or even a form a disrespect to life, but it

should be viewed as respect to humans and their wishes. Euthanasia only adds an extra option for
a very specific group of people who should be able to decide their future regardless of the beliefs

other individuals hold. Not everyone finds respect in living, maybe respecting a life really means

respecting the living individual and their needs.

References

Background about Euthanasia in The Netherlands. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background/

Citizenship Canada. (2017, July 11). Health care in Canada. Retrieved from

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-

immigrants/new-life-canada/health-care-card.html
Davis, A. (n.d.). A Disabled Person's Perspective on Euthanasia. Retrieved from http://dsq-

sds.org/article/view/512/689

Dowbiggin, I. (1970, January 01). A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and

Medicine. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/rec/DOWACH

Huynh, T. N., Kleerup, E. C., Raj, P. P., & Wenger, N. S. (2014, September). The opportunity

cost of futile treatment in the ICU*. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4134705/

Me Before You. (2016, June 02). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2674426/

Medical Futility. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/futil.html

Meyer, R. (2011, July 25). The cost of keeping the terminally ill alive. Retrieved from

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/12/cost-keeping-terminally-ill-alive.html

Trachtenberg, A. J., & Manns, B. (2017, January 23). Cost analysis of medical assistance in

dying in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/3/E101.full

What Are Palliative Care and Hospice Care? (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-are-palliative-care-and-hospice-care

Willmott, L., White, B., Gallois, C., Parker, M., Graves, N., Winch, S., . . . Close, E. (2016).

Reasons doctors provide futile treatment at the end of life: A qualitative study. Journal of

Medical Ethics,42(8), 496-503. doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103370