Britannica defines euthanasia as the “practice of
painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable
disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by
withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial
life-support measures” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Some describe it as “mercy
killing”. Euthanasia is illegal in most of the world, and in forty-seven out of
fifty U.S. states. Why is it illegal? One may say that every person has their
own right to die, especially when their life has been overcome by pain. Perhaps
this is true, but is it immoral to give doctors power over life and death? It
is wrong to ask a person who was trained to save lives to end one, and horrible
to give sick people the power to end their own lives. For these reasons
euthanasia should remain illegal and become illegal where it is lawful.
Proponents of legalizing euthanasia argue that certain
terminally ill people who do not have a chance of recovery have a right to “die
with dignity” (DREDF). They forget to realize many other factors play into the
decision to end one’s life. Financial pressures and depression will cloud the
minds of those faced with the choice of assisted suicide. Occasionally, people
who are told they have months to live make a full recovery. Some of these
people live for at least a few more years and are even happy for parts of that
time. What if those people ended their chance for a future by deciding to be
euthanized? In a perfect world those who
truly were terminally ill would be able to make a decision based only on their
sickness and the amount of pain they are in. However our world is far from
perfect.
If
euthanasia was legalized, it would become unclear when it is acceptable to use
it. Keeping it as a last resort for people with no hope sounds like a good
idea, but it would lead to euthanasia becoming more acceptable for people who
have other options. When in a period of pain and suffering, a person may say or
want irrational things. If not in their right mind, one may lose the will to
live. Even in situations where hope of survival and recovery is not lost, some
people would ask for euthanasia. Maybe when first legalized, they would be
declined their request. Eventually though someone who had other options would
be given the go ahead. One doctor would make a mistake based off his sympathy.
This would give other people a case to point to and use as an argument for
their own euthanasia requests. Ending one’s life should not be seen as a
solution. If euthanasia were legalized, that’s exactly what it would become for
some sick people.
Another major issue with euthanasia legality is giving
one man the power over life and death. There are many dilemmas we face when
deciding who should administer the dose of death. One is giving men power they
might abuse. Jack Kevorkian was a proponent of assisted suicide who took many
people’s lives. He claimed to be doing it to help them; however it was more to
gain publicity for the issue of Euthanasia. A New York Times article on Jack
reads “When the Detroit Free Press investigated his ‘practice’ in 1997, it
found that 60 percent of those he assisted weren’t actually terminally ill” ( Douthat).
Human corruption is too widespread to
legalize this kind of death (Bio.com).
Giving
men this type of power creates another issue. Whoever ends up taking the life
will have to deal with the guilt. They will have to deal with the family
members who perhaps did not want their mother, father or sibling to end their
own life. This person may even face legal problems and lawsuits, especially if
they make a mistake. Now we must ask, should it be the doctor? The doctor has
spent all of his or her life learning and perfecting the art of preventing
sickness and saving lives. It is immoral to even consider asking doctors to
have to take a person’s life. A person could specialize in the field of
euthanasia, although I do not imagine many people aspire to become
executioners. Then there is the mess of dealing with the mixed emotions that
may or may not afflict the person who administers the dose. What if after a few
years, or maybe over a lifetime, the person’s philosophies change? They may no
longer agree with taking lives, and become unable to live with themselves
because of what they have done. This kind of guilt can become overwhelming, and
no one should have to deal with it.
The doctors who put people to death will not be the only
people facing guilt issues. If euthanasia were a legal option, many terminally
ill patients would feel guilty not choosing death. They may feel as if they are
a burden to their family, or maybe they do not want to leave behind huge
medical bills. This is no choice sick people need to be making. No human should
be made to feel guilty for wanting to live. Other people may feel forced by
their own healthcare plans. In Oregon (where assisted suicide has been
legalized), some patient’s healthcare plans cover euthanasia, but do not cover
their own treatment plans! This ridiculous obscenity can easily push people
towards euthanasia so as not to leave their family with tremendous debt. Healthcare
plans in Oregon are inadvertently pushing patients toward assisted suicide, and
this would also happen if euthanasia became legal elsewhere. If a terminally
ill and depressed person decides to be put to death instead of becoming a
“burden” to their families, their choice should not be considered voluntary. That person would have been forced into
deciding to lose their own life by financial and personal relationship issues.
(DREDF)
Ultimately, the many moral issues with euthanasia are
clearly good reason to keep it illegal. Too much guilt and depression would
come from taking the power of life and death into our own hands. Death for the
terminally ill would become a gateway to death for any who choose. The power of
life and death should not be given to doctors. Euthanasia should remain illegal
indefinitely.
Works
Cited
1.
The Legal Aspects of Medical Euthanasia
David W. Meyers Bioscience Vol. 23,
No. 8, The Dilemmas of Euthanasia (Aug., 1973), pp. 467-470 Published by: University of California Press
on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1296606
2.
"Key Objections to the Legalization
of Assisted Suicide." DREDF.org. DREDF. Web.
<http://www.dredf.org/assisted_suicide/Key-Objections-to-the-Legalization-of-Assisted-Suicide.pdf>.
3.
Hillyard, Daniel, and John Dombrink. Dying
Right: The Death with Dignity Movement. New York: Routledge, 2001. Print.
4.
Zanskas, Steve, and Wendy Coduti.
"Eugenics, Euthanasia, And Physician Assisted Suicide: An Overview For
Rehabilitation Professionals." Journal Of Rehabilitation 72.1
(2006): 27-34. Consumer Health Complete - EBSCOhost. Web. 11 Sept. 2012
5.
Cassel, Christine K.
"Physician-Assisted Suicide: Are We Asking The Right Question?." Second
Opinion 18.2 (1992): 95. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 11 Sept. 2012.
6.
Douthat, Ross. "Dr. Kevorkian's
Victims." Editorial. The New York Times. The New York Times, 06
June 2011. Web. 13 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06douthat.html?_r=0>.
7.
"Euthansia: The Wider Social
Context." British Journal Of Nursing 6.17 (1997): 1015. Publisher
Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 10 Sept. 2012.
8.
"Jack Kevorkian Biography." Bio.com.
A&E Networks Television. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.biography.com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141?page=5>.
9.
"Euthanasia (law)." Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 10 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196711/euthanasia>.