Euthanasia refers to a medical procedure in which a patient is painlessly killed by induction of a medical drug. Euthanasia’s premise is to diminish the patient’s suffering, inflicted by diseases such as dementia, Parkinson’s, or cancer. As of 2023, euthanasia is legal in 9 countries, listed as Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Australia. Aside from these countries, the legalization of euthanasia is a prominent medical debate across the world. The debate concerns conflicting cultures, religions, personal and societal ideals.
Medically, euthanasia is coined as a ‘mercy killing’. There are various forms of the practice, differentiated between active and passive methods. Active euthanasia refers to the usage of drugs or medication, injected by a physician to end one’s life. Alternatively, passive euthanasia refers to the removal of life support, consequently heeding the patient’s deterioration. In a paradoxical sense, passive euthanasia is still practiced despite the prohibition of active euthanasia in most countries. Is the prohibition of active versus passive euthanasia ethical – or is it simply a means of carrying less guilt, rather than proactively ending a patient’s life? Additionally, many believe passive euthanasia to generally be a contradiction, and therefore not credible, as it does not differ much from active euthanasia.
From religious perspectives, euthanasia is immediately discredited. It is believed to be a direct contradiction of the principles of God through the cessation of human life. Engagement in the practice would contravene the basis of religious faith. In Christianity, it is believed that euthanasia strips a human of their ‘divine spirit’, thus rejecting the ‘gift of God’ that is life. This is the general consensus within various religions, including Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. Generally, religions convey life as a sacred construct, as well as a staple for humanity and higher entities. Alas, an intent to destroy this construct would result in disarray, blasphemy, and generally, disrespect for the faith. Many countries enforce heavy punishment for euthanasia, due to the interlaced political and religious framework that these governments abide by. For example, in most Middle Eastern countries, penalties often exceed decade-long imprisonment. Moreover, in the Declaration on Euthanasia, produced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1980, euthanasia is declared a ‘violation of the divine law’, as well as ‘an attack on humanity’. Nowadays, similar imprisonment penalties are imposed within modern day Italy, as well as in France, Scandinavia, and other European countries. The US prohibits euthanasia in all 50 states, with similar legislation to religious governments. Ultimately, euthanasia is a deep-rooted offense in religion, and a source of disarray in religious countries.
So, what is the ethical premise of euthanasia? Many believe that euthanasia should be justified as a moral right for the autonomy of the patient. Whilst this conflicts greatly with the aforementioned religious ideologies, it is ascertained that the moral compass of the patient is more significant. Therefore, euthanasia is a means of accomplishing mercy in this respect. Here, ‘mercy’ may be defined as aid to a patient’s distress. Euthanasia relieves the patient, albeit the sacrifice of life which must be made. It may be considered an outlet of freedom, through acceptance of one’s inevitable fate. Perhaps the patient wishes to end their suffering, rather than persevering. This perspective aligns with religious ideals, as it views euthanasia as a practice due to one’s inherent weakness and lack of resilience. It pays homage to the etymological origins of the word, as the Latin translation for “euthanasia” is “easy death”. Philosophically, euthanasia is viewed as a sign of indolence for one’s life; an ‘easy’ outlet to escape the suffering that the patient has been plagued with.
In the Netherlands, euthanasia was legalized in 2001, forming as the first European country to do so. Currently, the laws affirm that euthanasia should be resorted to if highly ‘visible or incurable suffering’ is detected from the patient. Upon completion of the practice, the procedure is reviewed by the government, and detection of unlawful euthanasia results in decade-long imprisonment. In the Netherlands, the laws entailing euthanasia are a representation of the legislation that should be adopted, as the desires of the patient are prioritized, whilst there is still consideration of the medical implications which may occur.
Regarding my own ethics, I believe that euthanasia should be a right, and a choice that can only be made by the patient. The subjective religious, cultural and moral views of the patient should be prioritized. In this case, there should be distinctive criteria for the completion of the practice, as is done in the Netherlands. Euthanasia should only be regarded as the final resort if the disease is proven incurable. If the patient is not in a conscious state of mind to offer their consent, all measures should be taken to ensure the recovery of the patient, until a coherent decision can be made regarding their fate. It is an ethical debate which requires input from the patient, doctor, external family members and from a cautious extent, the government.
