Oliveros, May Clare A.

#26

TFR-1:00-2:30 pm white index card

Why We Should Make Euthanasia Legal?

Doctors will today debate the existing laws on euthanasia. Here Dr Kailash Chand explains the
reasons behind his motion for the introduction of new legislation to allow terminally ill people the
choice of an assisted death

(First published on Wed 1 Jul 2009)

The issue of euthanasia, or assisted dying, is incredibly controversial and there are legitimate
concerns on either side of the debate. Today I will propose a motion to the British Medical
Association's annual conference in Liverpool, which states:

This meeting supports the introduction of legislation to allow people who are terminally ill but 'mentally
competent', the choice of an assisted death. Further, the law should not criminalize people who
accompany those who make rational decisions to end their suffering.

The motion will seek to take the issue forward in a compassionate and fair way that I believe will serve
the interests of the terminally ill and our society.

The starting point has to be in the law, which at present is failing, as shown by the recurrence of cases
in the courts that often place relatives, already dealing with the painful loss of a loved-one, in the
middle of distressing legal battles. There is clearly a desire – whether we like it or not – among a
number of patients at the end of often terrible battles with debilitating, incurable diseases to end their
suffering with the support of their relatives. To deny this right is to prolong the suffering for individuals
and families, something that I can simply not condone.

I do accept though that this is not like any other clinical decision – and that if society is to offer this
solemn choice it must also build in safeguards to its laws that not only rectify the inadequacies of the
current situation, but also protect the vulnerable, the weak and all those – doctors and nurses included
– who are involved in this incredibly difficult situation.

As a start we must enact legislation to decriminalize acts of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
Some of the reasons that are compelling enough for us to change our laws are:

Prevention of cruelty and protection of human rights

To allow a terminally ill individual to end their life is the only humane, rational and compassionate
choice. The current prohibitions require a person with great physical and/or mental suffering to
continue to endure their suffering against their wishes, which cannot be right. The right to life and the
right to private and family life under the European convention on human rights should be interpreted
broadly to include decisions about quality of life, including decisions about death if the life is no longer
one of quality.

Regulatory Control

The terminally ill are travelling abroad to countries where the right to end of life in terminal cases is
recognized and is lawful. We cannot regulate the laws of foreign lands. We must make provisions
within our laws to regulate this issue within our boundaries under our control and supervision. We
must not prosecute loved ones for "encouraging or assisting" suicide who enable or assist a terminally
ill individual to travel abroad to end his or her life lawfully.

Ambiguity in the application of the current law

The current law conflicts with the law as it is being enforced. If the laws as written were being enforced,
over a hundred people would have been prosecuted for accompanying their loved ones abroad to
help them end their lives. This ambiguity and uncertainty leaves all concerned, including physicians,
unprotected.
Discriminatory effect of the laws

The ability of the wealthy to travel to countries where it is lawful for the terminally ill to end their lives
has the discriminatory impact of treating the haves and have-nots unequally.

The Safeguards

Many people are opposed to legislation that would allow "end of life" choices. But our concerns
relating to abuses and protection of the vulnerable can be addressed by ensuring that certain
objective safeguard conditions are met prior to allowing a terminally ill individual from exercising his or
her right to die with dignity. Some of the safeguards include the following:

• The patient must be terminally ill.

• The patient must be an adult.

• The patient must be mentally competent.

• The patient must be in severe pain.

• Two independent physicians must be satisfied that the above conditions are present.

In conclusion, the only humane choice is to allow individuals who are suffering to choose to end their
suffering. Further, the discrepancies in the laws as they exist and how they are being enforced have
led to uncertainty. This uncertainty leaves the doctors, their patients and patients loved ones
unprotected. If we do not address these issues openly and head-on, we will have continued
uncertainty and unregulated practice of euthanasia or assisted suicide with the fear of prosecution
hanging over the heads of all concerned.

The goals of the medical profession should continue to remain one of saving lives but this should not
be at the expense of compassion and a terminally ill individual's right to choose to end his or her life
and die with dignity.

There are 4 main types of euthanasia, Active and Passive Euthanasia, Voluntary and Involuntary
Euthanasia, Indirect Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

Active Euthanasia involves “the direct administration of a lethal substance to the patient by another
party with merciful intent”. A person directly and deliberately causes the patient's death. Passive
Euthanasia they don't directly take the patient's life, they just allow them to die. Passive euthanasia’s
“Withholding or Withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment either at the request of the patient or when
prolonging life is considered futile.”

Voluntary Euthanasia occurs at the request of the person who dies. Non-voluntary Euthanasia also
includes cases where the person is a child who is mentally and emotionally able to take the decision,
but is not regarded in law as old enough to take such a decision, so someone else must take it on their
behalf in the eyes of the law. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the person who dies chooses life
and is killed anyway. This is usually called murder.

Indirect Euthanasia refers to the prescription of painkillers that may be fatal in an attempt to relieve
suffering. A justification along these lines is formally called the doctrine of double effect.

Physician-Assisted Suicide refers to a medical professional aiding a patient in terminating their life
upon the patient's request.
ANALYSIS

“Self-preservation is our highest duty to ourselves and we may treat our body as we please, so
long as our actions arise from motives of self-preservation” Immanuel Kant. Euthanasia or mercy
killing was one of the controversial issues nowadays not only in the Philippines. By definition,
euthanasia means terminating the life of an ill person in order to extricate them from their torments in
painless way. Indeed euthanasia was still illegal and forbidden in most countries including the
Philippines. In 1997, the Philippine senate considered passing a bill legalizing passive euthanasia.
The bill met strong opposition from the country’s Catholic Church. If legalized the Philippines would
have been the first country to legalize euthanasia. But there are also few top countries like The
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada and the six States in the US including
California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington State who legalized euthanasia
under certain condition. According to the 2007 British Social Attitudes survey, 80% of the public said
they wanted the law changed to give terminally ill patients the right to die with a doctor’s help. I agree
with the statement in the article which promoting the legalization of euthanasia. Why? Because I
believed that a civilized society should allow people to die in dignity and without pain, and should allow
others to help them to do so if they cannot manage it on their own. Our bodies are our own and should
be allowed to do what we want with them. So it’s fallacious to make anyone live longer than they want.
Why have to ventilate this issue? Because it’ll assist us our own point of view in considering the idea
of is it efficacious or incompetent to legalized euthanasia in the Philippines. As well as to give the
stance we sympathize for about the said issue. Therefore Euthanasia should be legalized because it’ll
upraise personal freedom, promote human rights and to disentangle ill people from affliction
predicament.

Euthanasia should legalize because it’ll upraise personal freedom for those ill people who
suffered too much from sort kinds of diseases. Rachel Barnett (2013) stated that “we celebrate our
right to live our lives according to the hand we’ve been dealt. Whatever choice you make, our law, at
least, respects will it”. Most of us want to practice our religions, but in specific cases such you are old,
extremely in pain or terminally ill, ready to go? You’d best committed to sorting that out for yourself.
We don’t see the right to end our own lives as a personal freedom worthy of protection. No one can
help you, no matter how much they love you, or how much they understand and support your decision.
Because in law, it’s murder to help someone die. In 17th century, philosopher John Locke in his
argument: particularly in Two Treaties of Government (1688). He claimed that, individual possess
natural rights, independently of the political recognition granted by the state. These natural rights are
possessed independently of, and prior to, the formation of any political community. We should remind
those law makers that there’s a difference between an ill person attempting suicide and a mentally
competent person electing to end their life. Of course suicide is a tragic waste of life. Too many
suicides would have or support or medication. But euthanasia isn’t suicide. It’s not even the same
ballpark. Thus, agreeing to the ill person to end his life won’t make us criminals, we’re considering the
fact that they needed that decision to put an end the sufferings where they’re currently in.

Euthanasia should be legalized because it’ll promote human rights. According to David Hume,
suicide is just another instance of altering the physical world (our bodies, specifically) for our own
purpose. He writes, “It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I
able to affect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces blood from their natural
channel?” if determining the time of death is entirely up to God, then it would also be wrong to
lengthen our lives, such as through medicine. As a traditional Filipino indeed it would be wrong to do
such, but we can’t deny the fact that it is part of us as a Filipino to not let our love ones to endure the
burden because of us. We better want to be hurt than seeing them in great tribulation. Hume also
added that “I am not obliged to do a small good for society at the expense of a great harm for myself. If
prolonging our existence is a burden on the society mostly to our family, then performing euthanasia
(mercy killing) is not only permissible but commendable. Whether euthanasia violates ones duty?
Euthanasia has been done many times in different circumstances for good personal reasons since it
requires such as strong motivation to overcome our natural fear of death.
 Euthanasia should be legalized to disentangle ill people from affliction predicament. Medical
science and practice is currently capable of an unprecedented prolongation of human life. It can be a
prolongation that often leads to unnecessary and pointless suffering. Enormous pressure is placed
upon both families and the health care system to spend time and very costly resources on patients
that have little or no chance of recovery and are irrevocably destined to die. I think being in favor to
voluntary active euthanasia is our fundamental right to a democracy. As an example, there’s a person
suffers from intolerably often because of an irreversible dependence of life-support. This patient
repeatedly requests that his life be terminated. I am convinced that to perform voluntary active
euthanasia is this situation is not only the humane and respectful, but morally justified way to go. As
stated by Anton van Niekerk (Stellenbosch University) ”The primary task of the medical profession is
not to prolong life or to promote health, but to relieve suffering. We have a right to die with dignity, and
the medical profession has a duty to assist in that regard.

Conclusion

Accordingly, there are many good reasons for and against Euthanasia. There are two theories
that dominate contemporary human rights discussion, which are the interest theory and the will theory.
The interest theory is said to be the principal function of human rights is to protect and promote certain
essential human interests. Will theory attempts to establish the validity of human rights based on the
unique human capacity for freedom. From here I would conclude that if someone is religious, they
would have to be Anti-Euthanasia because they would believe that God gave us life so we should
preserve it. However I think that Atheists and more liberal Christians may be Pro-Euthanasia, because
it is a way of ending someone’s suffering and giving them the right to choose what happens to them a
right that we would all want if we were in the same position. Lastly, we should always remember that
“To have a right, doesn’t imply that it is always right to execute that right.

REFERENCES

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jul/01/euthanasia-assist
ed-suicide-uk

http://theconversation.com/we-have-a-right-to-die-with-dignity-the-medical-profession-has-a-duty-to-a
ssist-67574

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/forms.shtml

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/human-rights-and-euthanasia

https://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/