Euthansia

“How can it be lawful to allow a patient to die slowly, though painlessly, over a period of weeks from lack of food but unlawful to produce his immediate death by a lethal injection, thereby saving his family from yet another ordeal to add to the tragedy that has already struck them? I find it difficult to find a moral answer to that question. But it is undoubtedly the law and nothing I have said casts doubt on the proposition that the doing of a positive act with the intention of ending life is and remains murder” (Lord Brown-Wilkinson in Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland [1993] A.C. 789).

The aim of this research paper is to provide an analytical investigation into the life ending decisions of people concerning euthanasia, specifically physician-assisted suicide and the legal and ethical debates that arise. Regarding the ethical debate about this subject, the concept of human life as an absolute value will be discussed along with the violation of ethical norms in ending the life of an innocent human being. Furthermore, the implications of the distinction between acts of omissions and causation issues will be of paramount importance to potential criminal liabilities and raises a number of sensitive and controversial issues. A vast majority of people believes that physician-assisted death or euthanasia should be an available treatment for a dying patient; however, I strongly believe that physician-assisted suicide is detrimental to society and violates medical ethics.

Encountered with a situation that involves ending a person’s life, there will always be procedural questions to be addressed regarding the nature of the decision to be made along with the ethical implications. Firstly, a critical ethical subject to be addressed is the absolute value placed on human life and how physician-assisted suicide violates the conservation of human life (Friend 2011). The campaign for assisted suicide is a threat not an aid, to human freedom. The pro physician-assisted suicide movement may seem like a support to human freedom, a choice for patients, but it is actually a menace. According to an expert on the subject, Mr. Hehir states, “The founders of our country declared that each human being has certain inalienable rights that government must protect. It is no accident that they named life before liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life itself is a basic human good, the condition for enjoying all other goods. Therefore the right to life is the most basic human right. Other valued rights, the right to vote, to freedom of speech—lose their foundation if life itself can be destroyed with impunity” (Hehir. 2014). Regarding human dignity, its most central tenet is human life. And human dignity cannot be supported by the contradicting action of devaluing human life. According to the most fundamental elements of philosophy and specifically ethics, the ending of human life is an incongruity of human freedom. According to Gather and Vollmann, “A society that devalues some people’s lives, by hastening and facilitating their deaths, will ultimately lose respect for their other rights and freedoms” (Gather & Vollmann 2013). ….. Can add more here with Netherlands evidence

The campaign to legalize doctor-prescribed suicide has been rejected by most policymakers in our society. The claim of a constitutional right to assisted suicide was firmly rejected in 1997 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld state laws against the practice as legitimate safeguards for innocent human life and the ethical integrity of medicine (Wittwer 2013). Jewish and Christian morals, which have been the foundation of U.S. society, have long rejected the idea of assisting in another’s suicide. Suicide is a grave offense against love of self, one that also breaks the bonds of solidarity with family and friends. To assist in another’s suicide is to take part in “an injustice which can never be excused, even if its is requested” (Hartmann 2004). Most people, regardless of their background, know that suicide is a terrible tragedy, one that a compassionate society should work to prevent. Allowing doctors to prescribe the means for their patients to kill themselves is a corruption of the healing art. It even violates the Hippocratic Oath that has guided physicians for millennia: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan” (Hartmann 2004).

Advocates of physician assisted suicide know the above contradictions, so they avoid terms such as “assisting suicide” and instead use euphemisms such as “aid in dying” (Wittwer 2013).  The organization leading this campaign has even concealed its agenda by changing its name. “The Hemlock Society, whose very name reminded people of the harsh reality of death by poison, has become ‘Compassion and Choices’” (Wittwer 2013). This agenda as I have stated previously is an attack on human dignity and does not entreat either free choice or compassion. According to medical and ethical expert Mr. Friend, “Physician-assisted suicide does not value the sanctity of human life; it intentionally ends the life of an innocent human being” (Friend 2011).