Home > Essay examples > Is Euthanasia Unethical in NZ? Morality of Mercy Killing

Essay: Is Euthanasia Unethical in NZ? Morality of Mercy Killing

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Essay examples
  • Reading time: 10 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 23 February 2023*
  • Last Modified: 22 July 2024
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,876 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 12 (approx)
  • Tags: Euthanasia essays

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,876 words.



The practise of Euthanasia is an extremely controversial subject. Within New Zealand currently, the practise of Euthanasia is illegal, because of the strong cultural belief that New Zealand’s society has opposing it, but how unethical is the practise of Euthanasia? And how many people within New Zealand actually disagree with the practise of Euthanasia? Is there really anything wrong with Euthanasia, and should it be legal within New Zealand? Is the option of euthanasia, something that could really improve New Zealand’s society today. Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is the intentional taking of another person’s life, in order to relieve them of pain, or suffering. (Nordqvist, 2016) Euthanasia, if considered legal within New Zealand, would be an option only intended for those who are suffering from a severe and terminal illness, or those nearing the end of their life. Ethically, because it is the deliberate killing of another person, there is a lot of debate about the practicality of Euthanasia and its morality, even though it is performed at the patient’s will.

Some people believe that because the practise of Euthanasia involves deliberate killing of someone, it is outright murder despite the patient asking for it. The opposing argument to this is that it is okay, because the patient has asked for it, and if they are willing to receive the treatment, then it is not murder. This is where the debate becomes ethical, because both arguments have valid and both have consideration to morality, as well as legality. According to the Dictionary, something that is considered ‘Unethical’, is “Lacking moral Principles; unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct”, or “not in accord with the standards of a profession”. Both of these definitions can be argued both for and against both the pro-Euthanasia argument, as well as the Anti- Euthanasia movement, making this issue a very difficult one to resolve, and also places it under the criteria as an ethical issue. The morality of taking a person’s life in this fashion, can be argued either way, as the action of Euthanasia can not be performed against the patient’s conscious decision, and therefore isn’t the same as murdering an innocent person on the street as sport, like a serial killer. As well as this, the act of Euthanasia can be seen as a moral act in aiding someone in a way to relieve them from suffering, although it requires active and deliberate action in killing them. Because it is deliberate killing however, the opposing argument to this is that it is unethical on behalf of the doctor or person who performs the operation, as they are ending the life of another human being. Doctors within their profession have never in history been used to perform anything within this type of circumstance, and it is really a standard within their profession to not kill or hurt a person, but to help, heal and medicate them instead. This is where the ethical battle begins, because both for and against arguments, have very valid and important points on the morality of Euthanasia, and it’s practise.

Euthanasia can occur in two different circumstances, and is either considered passive, or active. Passive Euthanasia is the act of Euthanasia in which requires no deliberate action to kill the patient, and is seen as a more moral form of Euthanasia within New Zealand, and is actually legal. Passive Euthanasia is when a patient who is sick or dying, is not resuscitated, or is stopped receiving medication in which keeps their body alive. Examples of passive Euthanasia, are when a cancer patient who is very sick, stops receiving treatment, and is left to die without this treatment, or when a person who has been in an accident or medical event is connected and reliant on life support, and the life support is switched off. Because the body is only dying because the medication it is reliant on is taken away, it is not seen as immoral as Euthanasia, as the body is naturally shutting down without deliberate administration of a drug in order to shut the body down. Active Euthanasia however, is when the human body is functioning well enough to live, and requires this external medication or administration of something in order to kill the body, and end the life of the patient. Active Euthanasia, because of it’s deliberate intent in actually killing someone, is illegal within New Zealand at this moment.

Recently within New Zealand, The David Seymour End of Life choice bill was brought to conversation, as it was drawn out of this year’s election ballot. One community that is New Zealand based, who is in support of the passing of this particular Bill, is the Voluntary Euthanasia society of New Zealand. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society, or VES, believes that Euthanasia is a form of healthcare that is necessary, and should be an option for people, should they ever be in a situation in which they require Euthanasia. VES’s argument for the option of Euthanasia, is the fact that people should be able to decide such things for themselves, and not have the option of being Euthanised taken away from them because of another person’s opinion, in the enforcement of anti-Euthanasia Law. Alongside the VES, the Morgan Foundation is also in support of the bill passing in New Zealand.

Both the VES and Morgan Foundations believe that the choice for Euthanasia should be there for people to utilise, need they require it. They believe that people should be able to make the option whether to receive Euthanasia or not, and not have that option to or not to, taken away by a law against Euthanasia. These foundations believe that a person has the right to a choice whether or not to receive Euthanasia, and that option should be readily available for them.

A young man in Canada by the name of Adam Maier Clayton, had a very strong and alternate argument for the choice of Euthanasia, not just for those with physical illness, but also for people like himself, suffering with mental illnesses. This is an issue in which New Zealand very well could encounter if the David Seymour Euthanasia bill is passed; Is a mental illness eligible for euthanasia treatment? The law around Euthanasia in Canada, is that Euthanasia is legal for those who are seeking treatment for physical illnesses that will eventually end in a termination – so situations like terminal illnesses, or deterioration of bodily functions in the elderly, would be eligible for euthanasia. Adam Maier Clayton was very young when he first started experiencing mental illness, in the likes of OCD, anxiety, and bipolar like mood swings. He started suffering before the age of 5 years old, and from then his conditions eventually developed to Somatic symptom disorder. This is a disorder in which the brain will inflict pain on the body in a burning like sensation, because of an overwhelming amount of stress. It is a neurological disorder, and although there are treatments for it, none of them seemed to work for Adam. Adam, a young, strong, and determined young man, came to the conclusion that his life was not worth living in the pain he was in from his mental condition, and began to campaign for the Euthanasia law to be altered so that people with mental illnesses like him could die in dignity with family around them, in a safe, and comfortable environment. Unfortunately, Adam could not wait for his life to be over, and under the circumstances he was in, decided for himself that his only option was to leave in the middle of the night, clock into a motel by himself, and die in the dead of night all alone at the age of 27, without his beloved family by his side as he wished. (BBC, 2017)

Today, Adam’s parents are fighting for the use of Euthanasia to be opened up to people suffering with mental illnesses like Adam, but how damaging could Euthanasia be if the opportunity to access if it was this broad? Euthanasia is a very sensitive topic in terms of mental illness, because it needs to be. Mental illness has no capacity, it can consume an entire lifetime of a person, or just a single year, even just a month in cases. There is no telling how long someone will endure a mental illness, no telling if it won’t or will get better, however, euthanasia could be a very dangerous resource for people who have mental illnesses, as an option for a premature out through death, before giving it any chance to get better. It seems wrong to me personally, after talking of the word ‘hope’ around the face of mental illness for so long, to replace it all of a sudden with ‘mercy’.

People are supposed to live. We’re supposed to experience, and life is meant to be difficult. In providing Euthanasia for those with Physical illness, we as a community are expected to consider the option for those with mental illness also, and this is a very relevant topic in the debate, for and against, and what is best for our community in New Zealand. Wanting to die is not a normal ideology of life, but does euthanasia promote the idea of wanting to die? If Euthanasia comes into play in New Zealand, will we switch our gutsy ode of ‘hope’ for ‘mercy’?

One community in which opposes the David Seymour End of Life Choice bill being passed, is Hospice of New Zealand, which is an organisation in which provides palliative care for patients with terminal illnesses, who are on their way to the end of their lives. The Hospice organisation works to ensure a comfortable and safe environment for people to pass away in the most comfortable and easiest way possible. They provide medication to their patients also, to ensure that their last days are not spent in pain. The Hospice position statement reads; “With the right palliative care a person with a life limiting condition can live a good quality of life with their dignity maintained and symptoms managed.” (Hospice website). I spoke with my Auntie, Toni Hancock, who has worked as a Hospice nurse not only within New Zealand, but also in palliative care units in an Orphanage in Guatemala, during the AIDS breakout in the 1980’s. She currently works as a hospice nurse in the Hospice on the North shore of Auckland – I spoke with her about Hospice NZ as an organisation, and I also spoke with her about her personal experiences as a palliative nurse in regards to Euthanasia. The first thing that she had to say about Hospice, and it’s palliative care, was that it was there in order for people to be comfortable enough during their last stages, to not want, or need Euthanasia in the first place. The Hospice organisation has never been a Pro-Euthanasia organisation, not only within new Zealand, but also in countries overseas where Hospice foundation operates, even in countries where euthanasia is practised. The Hospice’s position in terms of the lives of those who are in the last stages of their lives, is that they are still human, they’re valued, and respected as humans, and also shouldn’t feel devalued in any way to even consider the likes of Euthanasia as an option in the first place. The hospice takes a very holistic point of view in terms of Euthanasia, and takes into consideration that no matter how ill or vulnerable someone is in their last stages of life, they value enough to not be killed in deliberation through Euthanasia.

In speaking with my auntie, I came to understand that many people who are coming into the last stages of their lives are generally quite scared of death. People are scared of not knowing, and not having control over things. People within today’s society have control over so much; we control the clothes we wear, the food we eat, we literally control everything within our lives, everything apart from being born, and dying. This lack of control in something so significant can for some people make them anxious, not only in not being able to control the situation of death, but also in not being able to control their knowledge of death, and what happens beyond. People have so little knowledge of what happens after we die, and humans can get very anxious about this, as during life we have an endless and surplus amount of knowledge about absolutely everything, then suddenly, the supposed most important aspect of life, in its termination is not a certain and given knowledge. People hate the fact that we no control over what happens after death, and therefore in asking for Euthanasia in given circumstances, people can feel like they have some sort of control over their death, like they’ve had control over their lives their entire time on Earth. Being born, and dying is out of the control of humans for a reason – because it is a natural event in which we physically should not be able to control. We are not able to control death for a reason, and when somebody’s time comes, that is the time they are supposed to go – it is an unnatural contemporary phenomenon to be able to have control over one’s own life and death. The hospice as a foundation works to provide a certain comfort around death, and they work to eliminate the fear of dying. Palliative care is a place for people to find comfort and ease before they have to pass away. It is a place where everyone’s lives a valued, and no-one is felt to be a burden on society.

Another group in society in which is opposed to the idea of the bill being passed, is the Catholic Church, and Catholic society within New Zealand. The Nathaniel Centre of New Zealand, is a centre in which deals with concerns around Catholic Bioethics. The Nathaniel centre is concerned with the passing of the bill, because of the issues in self worth and dignity in people who are sick and meet all requirements for Euthanasia, however do not want to receive it. These people may feel like they are a burden on society, or feel pressured to give their life and receive Euthanasia, even though they do not want it. Euthanasia puts pressure on the most vulnerable people in society – the sick and the elderly. These people need to be cared for, and not told that they are a burden in any way on society, and Euthanasia, is an almost glorification of death, in eliminating the vulnerable people from society. The Nathaniel Centre also puts the idea of control, and the need humans have to control everything in life. The Nathaniel centre sees this in a religious perspective, of the fact that humans should not be able to control life and death in such a way, because life and death is God’s responsibility and no human should try cheat this, or take God’s power of death away from him. Life and death is not supposed to be controlled by humans, and therefore Euthanasia should not be an available option for humans.

(Buckley, 2010).

I personally believe that Euthanasia is an issue which needs to be addressed, but not in legalisation. I believe that no one should have the option to kill themselves. Euthanasia, is really no different than suicide in the long run and the topic of Euthanasia as an option for our most vulnerable New Zealand will bring up the issue of what is regarded as an eligibility for Euthanasia as a health care option, for example mental health and the argument that Adam Maier Clayton brought to light. People should not feel the need to die, and New Zealand should be focusing more on providing quality palliative care in order to eliminate the fear of death, and the need to die, and not focusing on opening Euthanasia as an option for New Zealand. In contemporary society, we have come to understand that technology in medicines has the potential to advance in substantial amounts, and there are breakthroughs every single day in medical science. There are thousands of scientists all over the world finding cures, pain killers, and medications that are breakthrough for those with terminal illnesses, and with this new technology being so advanced, and in it continually advancing, Euthanasia will no longer be needed or relevant in society in future years when painkillers are so advanced that those who are dying will not be in pain. Even in today’s society, those who are approaching their death should be provided with medicines to ease pain. The David Seymour bill conversation is taking up time where we could be discussing finding these new medications, or legalising those that aren’t available in New Zealand currently. New Zealand is creating a society that has lost hope and faith in human technology, and Euthanasia should not be considered a quick fix for someone to get better. We should be focusing on topics such as legalising medical Cannabis, and funding health and medical science research, not focusing on providing an ‘out’.  

Discover more:

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Is Euthanasia Unethical in NZ? Morality of Mercy Killing. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/essay-examples/2017-10-19-1508442884/> [Accessed 19-12-24].

These Essay examples have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on EssaySauce.com and/or Essay.uk.com at an earlier date than indicated.

NB: Our essay examples category includes User Generated Content which may not have yet been reviewed. If you find content which you believe we need to review in this section, please do email us: essaysauce77 AT gmail.com.