Would you allow a terminally ill patient, who a) is in constant suffering and b) likely to meet death’s door sooner or later – to end their own lives peacefully?
This is the moral dilemma that plagues euthanasia and renders it as a controversial subject both in the medical field but also in religion and law.
But first of all, what is euthanasia? Euthanasia (also referred to as ‘mercy killing’ and ‘assisted suicide’) is the practice of ending a patient’s life in order to relieve the long term or insufferable pain they experience. In this article, we will explore perspectives on why this procedure is not being legalised, and their reasoning behind their standpoints.
As we may know, the execution of mercy killing typically occurs in hospitals or other specialised facilities like nursing homes – so does this mean medical professionals support euthanasia? The World Medical Association, having held consultative conferences globally on this matter came to the conclusion that it is against physician-assisted suicide, demonstrating their responsibility and respect for maintaining human life.
What about the Hippocratic Oath? The Hippocratic Oath states the obligations and proper conduct of doctors and is highly regarded in modern medical ethics. The oath stated that “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.” Considering there is a substantial percentage of medical students who swear by the oath or similar types of declaration (about 98% of American medical students and 50% of British medical students swear an oath), it is safe to say that the majority of the medical field is against such practices due to the deliberate intent on ending human life.
In addition, how foolproof are euthanasia laws? According to the ‘slippery slope’ argument, if a specific action was to be legalised, then other correlated actions will be permitted as well – in simpler words, ‘down the slippery slope’. It is possible to examine this theory in a case study. For instance, in the Netherlands, euthanasia was only allowed for terminally ill who personally requested it, however it has ‘gone down the slippery slope’ by eventually permitting it for the chronically ill and even for children.
To summarise, despite the seemingly ‘good’ intent of euthanasia ending one’s suffering, there are multiple factors that work against it, like medical professionals who believe it is deliberate and unethical, and the ‘slippery slope’ theory that worries that laws revolving assisted suicide will only lead to more laws allowing such actions, making mercy killing too permissible, even leading to unethical use.
Afterall, would you allow your loved ones to stop fighting for life if there is a chance, however miniscule – that they will recover? Or will you let go of their hand and allow them to relieve this suffering forever?
Bibliography
Hippocratic Medicine – preserving ancient values. (2024). Christian Medical Fellowship – Cmf.org.uk. https://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article&id=424#:~:text=About%2098%25%20of%20American%20and,features%20of%20the%20Hippocratic%20Oath.
WMA – The World Medical Association-World Medical Association Reaffirms Opposition to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. (2014). Wma.net; WMA – The World Medical Association-World Medical Association Reaffirms Opposition to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. https://www.wma.net/news-post/world-medical-association-reaffirms-opposition-to-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/
Benatar, D. (2011). A Legal Right to Die: Responding to Slippery Slope and Abuse Arguments. Current Oncology, 18(5), 206–207. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v18i5.923
(2024). Livelaw.in. https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/images/1600x960_euthanasia.jpg
Be First to Comment