Aside from the personal benefits that come along with euthanasia, there are also legal rights which provide even more support as to why euthanasia should be legalized. “The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the personal choice of a mentally competent, terminally ill individual to terminate unendurable suffering and hasten inevitable death” (“ACLU”). The right of a mentally competent, terminally ill person to choose an end to their suffering by hastening an inevitable death is both implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition (“ACLU”). The right to die is “protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, child rearing, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment” (Hanley). A terminally ill patient who is on life support has the right to medical assistance in hastening death. Denying a terminally ill patient not on life support [of] medical assistance in hastening death is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“ACLU”). Constitutionally, terminally ill patients have the right to end their own lives. With that being said, it should no longer be deemed as illegal if there is constitutional backing to the right-to-die debate.
Of course any topic of discussion comes with its inevitable downsides. In this instance, the biggest critiques of euthanasia fall along a credible moral basis. Undoubtedly, the action of taking a life of any human is morally incorrect. “Euthanasia is wrong because it is deliberate killing, and societies throughout history have condemned killing others intentionally” (Fieser). Another worry is the potential for misuse; “Euthanasia will lead to abuses, and will result in actively euthanizing people against their wills” (Fieser). What if the patient’s condition isn’t truly hopeless? “There is always the possibility of some recovery, such as through a spontaneous remission or a new cure, or even a mistaken diagnosis” (Fieser). The Hippocratic Oath is often cited as it requires doctors to submit themselves to a moral responsibility to keep patients alive. “However, only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia explicitly” (Hanley). Of course these are all valid concerns with moral backings, but are we missing the bigger picture by focusing on the few undesirable qualities?
It’s imperative that euthanasia be legalized so people who are suffering can have the option to receive a peaceful release. However, there are steps that can be taken in the process to make sure it is done in the most responsible, and ethical way possible. Along with the legalization of euthanasia, there must also be strict guidelines set forth that prohibit the misuse and exploitation of this practice. In order to do so, it must be made clear that it is only to take place if the patient has clearly volunteered for it. It must never become an involuntary practice. There also must be complete assurance that the patient is terminal and unable for recovery. Though it may sound uncaring, it is imperative that their terminal condition be for certain in order to avoid the possibility of a wrongful death. By attaching strict guidelines to the practice of euthanasia, a middle-ground is created that forges both sides into one solid agreement.
Steps toward the legalization of euthanasia must be taken, not only for the subsequent benefits, but because it is our legal right. We must allow those who are suffering to feel dignified and give them the opportunity to forego their enduring pain. Of course taking this step in the medical field may open the door to the misuse of this particular practice, but enacting harsh guidelines will assure it remains kosher. As long as euthanasia is strictly a voluntary process and reserved for patients that are, without a doubt, terminal, there should be no issue counting it as a win for both sides.
2019-4-11-1554998391