ALL FACES OF THE BIGGEST DEBATE EVER

“Dying is not a crime.” 
― Jack Kevorkian

 

Humans are the most powerful species on the Earth and they have ability to decide about the life or death of the other species. That is the advantage of being the strongest, to be on the top of the food chain. But, being the greatest is sometimes also very hard. It takes serious responsibility and emotional intelligence to handle all things,   without tears and pain, without the signs that also the best have their low moments.

The debate of legality of euthanasia is old almost like a human awareness of pain. In last 50 years, it seems that medicine is fighting the unstoppable battle to endure the life and chase away the death but there are still cracks in between, the absence of light, the terrible pain and misery for those who are targeted by diseases, accidents and the cruel game of the destiny. When we are facing up with the agony of our pets, with the facts that our beloved dogs or cats will never be healthy again, the vet is offering us an injection of paradise for our lovely animals. That is almost like a key for good death, after soreness they cant deal with. Most of us would sacrifice all we have to give them back what they had, to drag them into the sun. But, the shadows of final end do not let the love in, they turn the appetite for life in begging for death. The eyes of our pets reflect the terrible suffering and we cant stand that….all we have to do is to comfort them and to let them peacefully die, without long torment. We help them to go slightly on the other side of the rainbow. We love them and we don’t want their pain, we decide for them. Euthanasia is some kind of mercy for the  poor creatures.

The real controversy of euthanasia begins with the people. The ethic of that act is still the most questionable issue in the medical and social discussions. It is not only about the emotional side of the decision if someone is ready to be helped to die, it is about the set thoughts that cover religious, cultural and legal objectives.

According to one medical journal, the euthanasia is described as practice of ending a life, with the main purpose to end the discomfort and pain:” The process is also sometimes called Mercy Killing. Euthanasia can fall into several categories. Voluntary Euthanasia is carried out with the permission of the person whose life is taken. Involuntary euthanasia is carried out without permission, such as in the case of a criminal execution. Voluntary euthanasia is typically performed when a person is suffering from a terminal illness and is in great pain. When the patient performs this procedure with the help of a doctor, the term assisted suicide is often used. This practice is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. It is also legal in the state of Oregon, Washington and Montana. Passive euthanasia is carried out by terminating a medication that is keeping a patient alive or not performing a life-saving procedure. Active euthanasia involves the administration of a lethal drug or otherwise actively ending the life. These two types of procedures carry different moral and social issues.”

So, as we see, the euthanasia is bringing many opened debates because it is challenging the spiritual and religious feelings of the people and also the legality of medical practice of ending the life that is already in pain.

There are many who are pro euthanasia as well as those who are against. Mostly, those who consider euthanasia as a murder or through the negative context forget the fact that all people should have free choice to decide how they will die. If they are in pain, hey have right to end that agony and to chose the merciful death. It is an ethical argument that supports the legality of euthanasia. On the other side, those who confront the right on euthanasia do not consider the meaning of quality of life. They hold on the old religious patterns that life, even in pain, is more sacred as death itself. I would say they should have right on that life in pain but they also should let others decide for themselves. If it is a matter of time when the severe sick person will die and in which level of soreness will be found, then we should accept the will of that person to end painful life. It is not anymore about the quality of life but about the horror of pain. This is not only devastating for the targeted human being but as well as for the beloved family.

The hidden element of euthanasia is just a fact that many apply this practice but using another names or excuses for it. The medical experts say it would be better for all if this issue would be legalized and controlled by the system. Only in that way, the negative outcome of the euthanasia could be also monitored and possibly stopped anything that could go in malign direction.

The euthanasia is more controversial than any other public concern. It steps into the field of social behaviour, emotional relations, justice, crime and medicine. That is a collage of different opinions with the same goal: to be or not to be:“From a legal standpoint, the Encyclopedia of American Law categorizes mercy killing as a class of criminal homicide. Judicially, not all homicide is illegal. Killing is seen as excusable when used as a criminal punishment, but inexcusable when carried out for any other reason. In most nations, euthanasia is considered criminal homicide: however, in the jurisdictions mentioned above, it is placed on the other side of the table with criminal punishment.Arguments regarding the euthanasia debate often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act made it legal for residents to request a lethal injection from a doctor. This is seen in other jurisdictions as being a criminal form of homicide. However, passive euthanasia through denial of drugs or procedures is considered to be legal in almost all jurisdictions. Those who argue for euthanasia feel that there is no difference. Those who are against it disagree.”

What I found very amazing is the survey about the opinions of the doctors themselves in the U.S. Among those 10,000 medical doctors that have participated in the case study, 16% would accept the form of euthanasia but 55% would never do that. But, there is a group of 46% of physicians who believe that assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases.

As we can see, the all surrounding problems about the merciful killing are nothing but the silent addressing of other important questions: the motives of euthanasia, the legality of decision and the medical approvement of this action.

The bioethics deals with some of these alternatives and offers the solutions for all diagonal ideas. It is not the big deal to legally set up the euthanasia but to solve the potential consequences of including the merciful death into the healthcare. For this type of analyses, it is often used the slippery slope argument. Somehow, I see the logic in this argument that finds the negative results of legal implementation of euthanasia. What could possibly go wrong?It is simply the fear that at the moment when system is starting killing( voluntary) its own citizens, it is just a breaking point when the line will be crossed and the deaths will be delivered just as the rational solution of the goverment. That could be a futuristic scenario but it could also gather the social burdens. If euthanasia is legalized, the real sick people who would possibly chose to live, are under the pressure to chose the merciful death so to not be the problem for their families and healthcare. It also could be abused and manipulated, especially when it comes to the family fight for the money and heritage of the patient. And at the end of the day, asking doctors to end someone’s life is the same as slapping all their efforts to find the way to endure the life, the big attack on their professional and ethical standards and the formulas of sciences to save the mankind and prolong the existence.

Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be allowed in some situations and under the special circumstances. That doesn’t mean global legal worshiping of merciful death but also the possibility for people who want definite end without pain. I believe it should be a legal right of every person who is facing up with hard disease that brings darkness and sharp teeth of pain. The people who are dealing with such kind of diseases or difficult outcomes of the accidents should be allowed to chose the way they will die and when their suffering will be ended. In any other cases, we should be very careful with the wishes of euthanasia not because of those who want it because they are sick, but because of the evil nature of the people. There are always those who could abuse the euthanasia to get rid of someone and to get something they want. Then, it is the tiny border between merciful killing and planned killing. Only then, euthanasia is a legalized homicide.

The euthanasia will be debated many years from now but the base of it will remain the same: are we really ready to give up on our lives and when ?