Blog Post #9

Many people find it easy to pass judgment on controversial issues without thoroughly investigating the two opposing first, but without actually grasping the entire entity of such issues, judgments can be ignorance-based and bias. Issues like euthanasia require extensive research in order to create an honest opinion, an opinion that understands both arguments and voices truth. A recent study was taken by the Statistic Brain Research Institute, showing that on average 55% of terminally ill patients die in pain. Imagine, more than half of terminally ill patients die in agony. Yet only 4 places in the entire world openly and legally authorize active assistance in dying (Oregon, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands).

I am a firm believer that assisted suicides do have a positive impact on the patients who NEED it, and has a negative effect on people who do not require it. I mean that for people who are terminally ill and have talked to their healthcare provider that there is nothing more medicine can do for them, then such an action could be beneficial. On the other hand, people who are perhaps born with abnormalities or disorders that do not necessarily prove to be fatal, then why would we want to end their lives?

I stand in the middle of the argument, I do want people to be able to pass on under their own terms, but there can be room for major abuse to take place with such a heavy issue. I believe that there is a reason for such a low amount of places on the globe that freely practice euthanasia because they are afraid of the outcomes that might happen, and perhaps it is such a heavy step to take for the terminally ill and the healthcare providers who treat them. Passing such laws is one thing, but the actual practice and the long term effects of euthanasia lies in the hands of the doctors and nurses. If anything, we need to hear the opinions and voices of the healthcare providers themselves in order to see how euthanasia could effect the general public.

Those who oppose euthanasia often cite the horror stories of patients being euthanized without consent or for unethical or impure reasons. Without a doubt, the history of euthanasia is not without its fair share of horror stories and because of the gravity of its practice, it does need to be regulated. However, this is not reason enough to say that it cannot be properly regulated. Developed nations like the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia and have had only minor problems from its legalization. Any law or system can be abused, but that law and system can always be refined to prevent such abuse from happening. In the same way, it is possible to properly and effectively regulate euthanasia as various first world countries have done. Euthanasia itself requires competent consent from the patient. It is important to consider the protection of both the physicians as well as the patients. The critical element in the regulation of euthanasia will be determining the line between what is considered to be euthanasia and what is considered to be murder.

A problem that could arise from the legalization of euthanasia is that the mentally ill are able to engage in assisted suicides. Since they are suffering from unbearable diseases of the psyche, some people say that the mentally ill should be able to choose to die at will. “However, implicit in the understanding of the word suicide is the notion of a premature death that is being hastened out of despair, therefore when mental illness impairs judgment, intervention to stop a suicide is ethically warranted because the person seeking suicide has lost his ability to carefully weigh the benefits and burdens of continued life.” Under such circumstances, people who are suicidal are treated as though their decision-making ability is compromised and health care personnel often step in and provide life-sustaining treatments over the objections of the patient. Legalizing euthanasia would not put people in danger of wrongfully death, because “unlike the patients with impaired judgment who request suicide, terminally ill patients who request medication have the capacity to make a rational, autonomous decision to end their lives.”

On the opposing side, doctors can make errors that can lead to unnecessary deaths. For instance, there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be mistakes in the diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. “Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes and to improve the quality of pain and symptom management at the end of life.” Another big reason why euthanasia is illegal is the potential for abuse. Vulnerable populations, lacking access to quality care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. “Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage loved ones to opt for assisted death and the protections in legislation can never catch all instances of such coercion or exploitation.”

The fact that euthanasia is illegal in most states prevents open discussion between patients and physicians and in public discourse. Legalization of assisted death would promote open discussion and may promote better end-of-life care as patients and physicians could more directly address concerns and options. Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when a person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition against assisted suicides excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore, euthanasia should be allowed in certain cases. I believe that we need to look at the places where assisted deaths are legal, and see how it is effecting the people. Also there could be further policy changes to make sure that there could be no room for abuse. The government needs to look deeper into the issue and could possibly influence other states and countries to practice safe assisted suicides.