Ethical Dilemma: Controversies surrounding Euthanasia Legalization
Via Vet times United Kingdom
Developed in 1870, Samuel Williams first proposed using anesthetics and morphine to intentionally end a patient's life. Since then, euthanasia usage has greatly increased, with many people having using euthanasia to lessen excruciating pain both mentally and physically, eventually leading to their choice of ending their lives. Unsurprisingly, this practice has sparked great controversy. The main arguments for and against euthanasia boil down to one question: should doctors be allowed to prescribe patients euthanasia?
Locked-in syndrome, Tony Nicklinson reviving the medical debate usage of euthanasia via CNN.
As of 2023, euthanasia practices on humans can be found around the world. Countries such as Belgium, Canada, Columbia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United States (with some states), and some states in Australia. Despite numerous Western countries asserting the autonomy of their citizens when it comes to the use of euthanasia, the acceptance and implementation of euthanasia still remains a highly debated and contentious topic.
Via Statistica.
Advocates of euthanasia argue that rather than prolonging the pain of an individual, it is better to end a person’s life with their consent. Take, for example, a twenty-nine years old Dutch woman, Aurelia Brouwers, who had suffered from severe mental health issues where she was distressed and also doing self-harm. Aurelia sought euthanasia after the doctor refused, leading her to find approval elsewhere. In Switzerland, Ann Bruce battled with Parkinson's disease before painlessly taking her life away with euthanasia because she did not want her suffering from Parkinson's disease to continue. Moreover, euthanasia offers compassionate and humane options for individuals who are suffering with unbearable health problems. With the strict guidelines, advocates of euthanasia believe that the usage of euthanasia can not be malpractice when applied with appropriate safeguards.
The group of anti-euthanasia group have multiple different reasons why euthanasia should not be legalized. Two common points can be divided into religious and secular viewpoints. For religious points of view, the common ones include Christianity and Buddhism, where religious texts both state that God does not allow euthanasia. For the non-religious views can be viewed as human-life being undervalued. Contrary to the point-of-view of the advocates of euthanasia side, the anti-euthanasia side strongly believes that the widespread practice of euthanasia can diminish the incentive to create more palliative care with only a quick solution – to kill oneself. Moreover, the potential proliferation of euthanasia could exert undue pressure on individuals facing illness. The pressure, usually from their family members, while distinct from the historical practice of Seppuku, is rooted in the belief that one’s health issues might lead them to view themselves as burdens on others, causing emotional distress and eventually taking their own lives in the future.
Historical practice of Seppuku which lasted from the fifteenth century to 1873 before being abolished.
A statistical image of world wide euthanasia cases by year from 2002 to 2017 reported via Dutch Regional Review Committees by the BBC.
As for the author, I believe that euthanasia should be halted at once, not solely because of my Christian viewpoints but also because of my take on the value of human life. There are many cases of people who will feel immense amounts of pain and cannot take it anymore. Still, if people from now on start to allow the use of euthanasia for medical purposes, later in our generation, euthanasia will not be used for medical purposes. Furthermore, euthanasia can also end a person's life when they feel so, undervaluing human life's value.