Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. It also means a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve persistent suffering. It is interpreted as the practice of ending a life in a painless procedure or assisted suicide. This interpretation is usually refuted because it needs to include a condition of unstoppable suffering (Egendorf pg 1).
In most countries, euthanasia is against the law. In the UK, it is illegal to assist someone to kill himself or herself, regardless of circumstances. It carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years in prison in the UK. In the USA, the law varies in some states. It is classified into two main classifications: voluntary euthanasia, which is conducted by consent, and involuntary euthanasia, which is conducted without consent. Voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, and the state of Oregon (USA) since 2009. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when decisions are made by another person because the patient is incapable of doing so by him or herself.
There are two procedural classifications of euthanasia: passive euthanasia is when life-supporting treatments are withheld, while active euthanasia involves lethal substances or methods used to terminate a patient’s life. It is carried out by the patient or somebody else. Even though they are similar in terms of intention and outcome, there are significant legal differences between the two. This leads to questionable distinctions that rest upon the most general distinction between acts and omissions: active interventions as separate from non-action or resisting from acting. The criminal law of the UK maintains a fairly rigid distinction between liability for acts that cause death on the one hand and liability for omissions that cause death on the other. This has massive implications for the law regarding active and passive euthanasia.
Arguments in favor of euthanasia include: it provides a way to relieve persistent pain, it frees up medical funds to help other individuals, euthanasia is a way of expressing freedom of choice, and it is a means of relief to someone whose quality of life is very low (“Euthanasia pros and cons”).
Sue Rodriguez, a mother in her early thirties, died slowly of Lou Gehrig’s disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. She lived in terror, helped eventually by a doctor who, in February 1994, covertly broke the law to help her die in peace. A law on euthanasia with rigorous safeguards could have saved her the nightmare during those months before her death, giving her the confidence to carry on – with the assurance that when it got too bad, she could rely on a compassionate doctor to follow her wishes at the end. The exit is pledged to support research and teaching in these difficult areas, which might be of great importance in making the world a better place (“Euthanasia, Right to Die: Cases”).
Assisted Dying, Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia: Legal and Ethical Dimensions
A recent article from the BBC highlights ongoing discussions and legislative changes regarding euthanasia, assisted dying, and assisted suicide. Scotland, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are considering changing the law to let terminally ill people end their lives. Campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen has called for Westminster MPs to vote on assisted dying, noting that some evidence suggests better end-of-life care in places where it is permitted.
Assisted dying generally refers to a situation where someone who is terminally ill seeks medical help to obtain lethal drugs, which they administer themselves. Assisted suicide involves intentionally helping another person to end their life and can include individuals who are not terminally ill. Providing someone with a lethal dose of sedatives or helping them go to Switzerland (where assisted suicide is legal) could both be considered assisted suicide.
Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, typically involving a physician administering lethal drugs. It is legal in fewer places than assisted dying or assisted suicide, and patients do not necessarily have to be terminally ill. There are two types: voluntary euthanasia, where a patient has given consent, and non-voluntary euthanasia, where they have not been able to, for example, if they are in a coma.
In the UK, euthanasia is illegal under English law and is considered manslaughter or murder, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The Suicide Act 1961 also makes it illegal to encourage or assist a suicide in England and Wales, with those found guilty facing up to 14 years in prison. Similar laws exist in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, there is no specific crime of assisting a suicide, but helping a person to die could lead to prosecution for culpable homicide.
Ethical and Theoretical Perspectives
The ethical debate around euthanasia often invokes several academic theories and principles. Utilitarianism, proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later expanded by John Stuart Mill, suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness and reduces suffering. From a utilitarian perspective, euthanasia can be justified if it alleviates immense suffering and contributes to the greater good by freeing up medical resources for other patients who have a better chance of recovery.
Deontological ethics, as articulated by Immanuel Kant, argues that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. According to this view, euthanasia could be considered morally wrong because it involves intentionally ending a human life, which could be seen as violating the intrinsic value of human beings and their right to life.
Virtue ethics, rooted in the works of Aristotle, emphasizes the importance of moral character and virtues in ethical decision-making. Advocates of virtue ethics might argue that a compassionate and empathetic approach to a patient’s suffering could support the practice of euthanasia, provided it aligns with the virtues of kindness and benevolence.
Personal Autonomy and Quality of Life
Arguments in favor of euthanasia often emphasize the importance of personal autonomy and the right to self-determination. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle supports the idea that individuals should have the freedom to make decisions about their own lives, provided they do not harm others. From this standpoint, choosing euthanasia can be seen as an exercise of personal autonomy, especially when an individual’s quality of life has deteriorated to an unbearable level.
Euthanasia provides a way to relieve persistent pain and suffering, which is a compelling argument for those who face terminal illnesses with no hope of recovery. It also frees up medical funds to help other individuals, presenting a practical benefit in resource-limited healthcare systems. Moreover, euthanasia is a means of expressing freedom of choice, allowing individuals to control the timing and manner of their death.
International Perspectives and Legal Variations
The legal landscape of euthanasia and assisted dying varies significantly across the world. Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942, and its Dignitas facility has been operating since 1998. However, all forms of euthanasia are against the law in Switzerland. Assisted suicide is also legal in neighboring Austria. In the United States, 11 states allow physician-assisted dying, permitting doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for self-administration. These states include Oregon, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, and Washington DC. In Montana, court rulings allow doctors to defend themselves if they assist in a person’s suicide.
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in Canada, where it is called medical assistance in dying (MAID). It can be provided by a doctor or nurse practitioner, either in person or through the prescription of drugs for self-administration. Similarly, Spain and Colombia permit both euthanasia and assisted suicide. In Australia, assisted dying is legal in some states but not permitted in the Northern or Australian Capital territories.
Three countries—The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg—have laws allowing people who are not terminally ill to receive assistance to die. New Zealand’s End of Life Choice Act also legalizes assisted dying, allowing adults in their final months of life to request assistance from a medical professional.
Case Studies and Real-World Implications
The case of Sue Rodriguez mentioned above, who suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease, illustrates the profound personal and ethical dilemmas associated with euthanasia. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would waste away, eventually leading to a slow and painful death by choking. Despite her pleas, the courts refused to allow a doctor to assist her in choosing the moment of her death. Eventually, a doctor covertly broke the law to help her die peacefully. This case highlights the potential benefits of a legal framework for euthanasia, which could provide comfort and assurance to terminally ill patients facing unbearable suffering.
Ethical Safeguards and Future Directions
A critical aspect of the euthanasia debate is the establishment of rigorous safeguards to prevent abuse and ensure that the decision is made ethically and responsibly. These safeguards typically include comprehensive psychological evaluations, mandatory waiting periods, and the involvement of multiple healthcare professionals to confirm the patient’s diagnosis and prognosis.
Research and teaching in this area are of great importance, as they can contribute to a better understanding of the ethical, legal, and medical complexities involved in euthanasia. Ongoing dialogue and examination of real-world cases can help refine policies and practices, ensuring that they are both compassionate and just.
Conclusion
Euthanasia remains a deeply contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides. While the practice offers a way to alleviate suffering and respect personal autonomy, it also raises significant ethical, legal, and social challenges. By exploring various academic theories, real-world implications, and legislative changes, we can better understand the complexities of euthanasia and work towards solutions that uphold both compassion and justice.