The word Euthanasia is derived from the Greek language where Euth means good and Thanasi means death. Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing. Euthanasia is a way of painlessly terminating the lives of those who are either suffering from and incurable disease or are in immense pain. Although doctors are put under oath to not be a part of euthanasia there are some states and small countries that permit this legally.
As I heard both sides of the issues extensively, I feel like there are some points that haven’t been included in the public debate. Before I get into the reasons I wanted to dispel a pretty big misunderstanding that’s out there that seems to have really confused the debate of this topic a lot of people who have been in favor of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide seemed to be under the impression that they were fighting for the right to die. They believe that this is about ensuring that when our time comes, we’ll have the right to refuse extraordinary medical intervention. The problem is we already had the right to refuse treatment. If you’re dying you can choose how that happens. If you do want hospital care, then you can define the limits of that treatment.
This isn’t about keeping people artificially alive beyond their wishes. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are when someone who is not necessarily dying is administered a drug that kills them prematurely. That’s a really important distinction. Legalizing Euthanasia and Assisted suicide is a bad idea for many reasons that are not only moral but also scientific.
An illness that always seems to be a focal point of this topic is Lou Gehrig’s disease or ALS. The research and treatment methods that are focused on diseases like ALS are quite expensive, so that means in public health care systems like in Canada’s, we as a society have to make sacrifices to make sure that treatment is available. We also need to help support funding for research in the hopes that better treatments and cures become available. That’s what the Ice bucket challenge was all about. Though that movement millions of dollars came in for research that led to the discovery of gene that was responsible for triggering the unset of that disease. Now we are willing to support funding for these measures for the sake of loved ones who might otherwise suffer, but euthanasia and assisted suicide become a prominent alternative to medical care, then that could reduce our motivation and incentives to find a cure. On top of that politicians who are often motivated by optics and balanced budgets might show preference for something that is a cheap alternative to medical care which euthanasia would be. Assisted Suicide reduced annual health-care spending by between $34.7 million and $136.8 million, according to a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday. So all of a sudden we have interests that will compete with the pursuit of the better treatments or cures of these illnesses.
Now that we have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide we’ve also had to introduce safeguards that ensure that only specific people qualify. We can’t just let anybody kill themselves after all, so we’ve had to create a criteria and a classification for those who are eligible and those who are not. Think about the message that we as a society are sending to people who are already vulnerable because they live with illnesses and disabilities both mental and physical; when we say that your situation is bad enough that we think suicide is actually a suitable option for you, but for other people we won’t allow it because they’re still useful or vital to us. That is unethical. We’ve essentially classified certain people as less worthy of life. That is a disturbing precedent.
You might be objecting because you think that this is only something that’s available for people that are on their deathbed but that’s not what the Supreme Court decision said. It describes “anybody with intolerable suffering, intolerable obviously being a relative term. In jurisdictions where this has been legal like Belgium and the Netherlands, they’ve already opened it up to people with mental illness and even children. “I think it’s very important that we, as a society, have given the opportunity to those people to decide for themselves in what manner they cope with that situation,” said Gucht, a supporter of euthanasia legislation about an article of the first child to be euthanized in Belgium.
Most people in a liberal democracy seem to affirm egalitarianism which is the idea that we are all equal. I can’t tell anybody how to live their life within reason and vice versa. In the same way we can’t impose restrictions on each other that violate our human rights and the fundamental human right is the right. So, life so nobody should have the authority to decide who should live and who should die. Many of the arguments I’ve heard in favor of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide seemed to emphasize this point about independence, for example I should be able to decide when I die. The Problem with that kind of thinking is that whenever this has been made legal that’s not how it works. Because of the necessary safeguards we’ve had to give certain people authority to decide who is eligible for this “treatment”. In other words, if you want medical assistance to kill yourself, you have to apply for it and to appeal to a bureaucracy to ask them if you’re eligible. That’s not you are claiming independence or sovereignty. That’s you appealing to an authority that is set above you. If anything, it’s the relinquishing of you right to life to other people who are supposed to be you equals. Again, this is a really disturbing precedent, that by legalizing something we’ve had to create a government authority who has the power to decide who can live and who can die. For a bureaucracy like that to exist, we’d be kidding ourselves if we still believed we’re a society of equals.
2019-11-5-1572925407