Euthanasia

Despite the 20th century has ended and begun a new century, there are many social dilemmas and issues that remain unsolved. One of the unsolved dilemmas, which should be solved, is euthanasia. Its origins can be traced in the history. There are some countries and religions that accept it under certain circumstances and many reject it.

Euthanasia is a word that has a Greek origin, meaning “a good death”. It is a kind of practice to end the life of a patient, who suffers from incurable disease, to release his or her pain. Nowadays euthanasia is also referred as mercy killing. Voluntary euthanasia refers to ending the life of the patient upon his or her request, whereas involuntary euthanasia is done by the physician whose patient is not mentally capable to make a request to die.

There are two kinds of euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an active intervention by a doctor to end the life of the patient painlessly by giving him lethal dose of medicine.

Passive euthanasia involves stopping or withholding medical treatment and artificial respirators that would help the patient to live longer (Beauchamp, 2001).

Euthanasia is not a recent concept. Its origin can be traced in the history. It has been spread and showed up in many societies and countries. In Ancient Greek city, Sparta, newborn children, who were ill from birth, were put to death. In India it was a tradition to throw old people into the Ganges.

The first extensive euthanasia practice in the 20th century began in Nazi Germany during the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Euthanasia clinics were established all over Germany. Special physicians were appointed for death those citizens who suffer from incurable diseases. But this was stopped in 1948 by the Roman Catholic Pope Pius XII. (Wasmuth, 1985, P. 712).

Laws in Unites States and Canada claim the difference between the passive and the active euthanasia. In these countries active euthanasia is illegal, whereas doctors are not judged if they perform passive euthanasia at the request of the patient or the patient’s legal representatives. Every state in US has accepted laws that approve legally capable individuals to make their will. This includes individuals’ control of the time and manner of their death. This helps doctors to stop prolonging the life of terminally ill patients at their or their representative’s request. Patients in Canada have similar rights to refuse life-sustaining treatment.

In 1995 Australia became the authority to openly legalize euthanasia. But in 1997 the country’s federal government rejected it.

Netherlands became the first nation in the world to legalize euthanasia in 2001. “Under the Dutch law, euthanasia is justified (not legally punishable) if the physician follows strict guidelines. Justified euthanasia occurs if (1) the patient makes a voluntary, informed, and stable request; (2) the patient is suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement; (3) the physician consults with another physician, who in turn concurs with the decision to help the patient die; and (4) the physician performing the euthanasia procedure carefully reviews the patient's condition. Officials estimate that about 2 percent of all deaths in The Netherlands each year occur as a result of euthanasia.” (Beauchamp, 2001)

The doctor’s oath, Hippocratic oath, states, “…I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel…. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art…. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption…”. In the oath there is assurance to reduce pain and to prolong the life of patients. (Hippocrates).

Euthanasia introduces an inconsistency in the medical code of ethics, since it includes contradictions within the oath. The Hippocratic oath promises both reliving pain and prolonging life. To prolong the life of an incurably ill patient violates the promise to relieve pain and to relieve pain by ending the life of the patient violates the promise to prolong and to protect life. The doctor’s problem in performing euthanasia may be resolved under the code of medical ethics by the “double effect” principle. This principle holds that the primary effect of an action relieves suffering may be ethically justified although the same action has secondary effect of causing death (Wasmuth, 1985, P. 711).

With the rise of organized religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, euthanasia is condemned because they regard life itself as sacred (Wasmuth, 1985, P. 712).

To