The dispute over whether euthanasia is acceptable or not has existed for a long time, however, it did not gain attention until the 1950’s Sander Trial in which, Dr. Hermann Sander was charged with killing his patient at request (Dowbiggin). Ian Dowbiggin, professor of history and writer of medicine history topics, discusses the debate over euthanasia and its evolution through time. Euthanasia is “usually referred to the practice of making dying patients as comfortable and pain-free as possible with a view to preparing them for death” (Dowbiggin). Through the Sander’s Trial and euthanasia trials that follow, it can be seen that public support for euthanasia has varied on case-to-case bases and societal time-period (Dowbiggin). This leads to trouble in determining which side of euthanasia has majority within the society and causes conflict when a patient seeks euthanasia. To thrust more independent variables, the cultural environment, such as religion, starts to play a role. Philip Nitschke, first doctor to administer lethal injection to patients under Australia’s Right to Terminally Ill Act and author of The Peaceful Pill Handbook, mentions that physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will remain a conflicting topic as long as religion is a factor in an individual’s life. Eugene Volokh, American Constitutional law scholar, agrees with Nitschke by emphasizing that religion should not be a determining factor in a legal matter such as physician-assisted suicide, which differs from euthanasia in only that doctors do not inject the life-ending medication. The flaw with Volokh’s claim, however, is that the general society relies on religion to support their decision regarding death and this cannot easily become a controlled variable. Although euthanasia has seen support through some societal factors, it has seen great dissent through religious individuals and has been countered through ideas such as palliative care. It becomes evident that euthanasia is not widely supported, but circumstantial issues bring to light that the thirst for euthanasia needs to be quenched in some manner and that an option has to be presented to euthanasia-seekers.
Societal events can have an impacting decision on controversial issues such as euthanasia. Dowbiggin showcased attitude change toward euthanasia during different time periods: post war, people were not very supportive of mercy-killing; women’s health movement, pushed for more patient rights, eventually leading to greater support for euthanasia. During the AIDS outbreak came even greater support for “death with dignity” (Dowbiggin). However, this idea of “death with dignity” is countered by Ira Byock, physician and author. He believes that it “implies that frail or physically dependent people aren’t already dignified” (Byock). Consequently, this points out that it matters how the disease is viewed by the society. At the time of the AIDS outbreak, AIDS was viewed as demeaning death and therefore, people wanted to escape the torture. Social factors shows that euthanasia can be viewed as a meaningless death, especially after events such as wars where many people passed away in combat. On the contrary, it also shows that euthanasia can further your claim to autonomy and allow escape of a bad death. Societal periods change and with it, support for euthanasia constantly changes.
Social atmosphere can have an effect on an individual’s decision on euthanasia. Family and doctors all play an enormous role with a patients’ decision towards euthanasia. Brian Kelly, Department of Psychiatry and Division of Mental Health, would agree with Dowbiggin in that surroundings affect one’s viewpoint of euthanasia, however, she proves this through familial/social settings rather than evental. She reveals that a patient would be more likely to determine euthanasia as a viable option if friends and family members are supportive (Kelly). According to CNBC reporter Michelle Castillo, already deaf and going-blind twins were happily euthanized with family support. She writes that “although the family was opposed to the request to die, they eventually came around and supported the fact that the twins should be allowed to make their own decision” (Castillo). Joris Gielen, Interdisciplinary Centre for the Study of Religion and World View, would add to Kelly’s claim of surrounding effects by including medical officials as variables to a patients’ decision (Saadat). Payam Saadat, assistant professor to Department of Neurology, reports Gielen’s claim that a patient’s deciding factors could “include relationships with and attitudes of caregivers and health professionals.” This means that a patient’s relation with their medical professional has to be stable to promote healthy decisions. Since, many of the social atmosphere plays a role in a patient’s decision, it is not only the patient’s choice to proceed with hastened death but also the society’s. This can become negative if the patient feels as if they are a burden to society and therefore, have the wrong motivating factors to move forward with a hastened death (Volokh). While this may be true, social factors surrounding patients are too independent and vary in each patient’s case so, they cannot be seen as negative or positive overall and leave a gray area when determining support for euthanasia through a societal viewpoint.
Culture surrounds a person through various forms and for euthanasia it is the main opposition perspective. Culture is determined by a person’s beliefs, and beliefs are often associated with miracles. Shane Sharp, professor of sociology, dedicated an experiment to determining whether a person’s belief for miracles or disbelief affected their stance on euthanasia. The findings were that if a person has belief for miracles they are less likely to encourage euthanasia because they still see the chance of a comeback from problems (Sharp). Sharp did try to determine if religion played a role but was unable to due to certain restrictions but his experiment does shed light on the correlation between miracles and euthanasia. As for the issue of religion playing a role in euthanasia, it is considered an unassociated factor, but most of these experiments state that they had limitations, proved not only by Sharp’s experiment but also the experiment held by Susan Mason, professor of psychology, and Christa Mastro, NU alumni (Sharp; Mastro). Furthermore, there are even written statements from credible sources and events that prove religion to be a major player in determining stance on euthanasia. Elena Paraschiv, Law and Public Administration faculty, reveals that the Catholic Church is against euthanasia and encourages its followers to imitate their path. Holy Fathers have written that it is a sin to use euthanasia (Paraschiv). Followers of this religion already are impacted by the officials encouraging opposition to euthanasia. Typically, religion reasoning is used to discourage hastened death and often makes an impact. However, there have been cases where the inverse was argued. Sanderson v. People is a case that argued that Sanderson should be allowed to use assisted suicide because his religious beliefs motivated him to have the right to end his life (Volokh). The court case ruled that there was no proof assuring that it was his religion which motivated his want for death, and ruled against him (Volokh). In the end, the religious perspective typically only boosts arguments in opposition to euthanasia.
Euthanasia should be discouraged but not regarded to be illegal anywhere. A person should have the right to make the decision for themselves. Axel Liégeois, has a PhD at Catholic University Leuven, recommends that a caretaker should encourage palliative care, a form of nursing care, to people who are seeking euthanasia. The caretaker should have real conversations with their patients and make sure that the patient is aware of what they are requesting (Liégeois). In the end, if the patient still wants to move forward with euthanasia, they should be allowed to, with a caregiver who is willing to perform the task (Liégeois). Euthanasia should be discouraged because a major part of the religious society will be offended by the act however, it cannot be denied, for the sake of personal values of the individual, and their view on society and culture. People will have different perceptions of society and different cultural values, therefore they should be able to decide their own death in correlation to their values as long as it is not manipulated by others or harming anyone else.
2019-2-12-1549940349