Should We Legalise Active Voluntary Euthanasia

Active voluntary euthanasia is necessary to allow people with certain irreversible and painful terminal medical conditions to decide for themselves whether their own life is worth persevering with. Active voluntary euthanasia should be legalised albeit with strict criteria and protocols.

This type of euthanasia refers to the assisted taking of a person's life, when they are physically unable to take their own life and where they are able to give full consent with a sound mind.

Modern Medical Technology

Modern medical technology has ensured that the human lifespan is now much longer than that of our forbears. This means that, although lives for the vast majority have improved immeasurably, the incidence of age related illness and the prolonging of life of patients with degenerative or terminal diseases has also increased greatly. The question of active voluntary euthanasia arises when a person's life has been prolonged by medical technology for as long as the patient can continue to live a meaningful life even to the smallest degree. Thereafter the effects of such diseases or illnesses can be insufferable pain and distressing symptoms such as incontinence, bed sores, hemorrhaging and so on. Where the mind is still alert and active but the body is no longer capable, the patient also suffers immense psychological pain and distress. Under these circumstances there should be no question that active voluntary euthanasia should be an option.

Suicide

There are many cases, in fact the vast majority, of suicide attempts or intended suicide where the patient should be helped to overcome the problems they are suffering and which leave them feeling that suicide is their last option. These patients are NOT cases for legal active voluntary euthanasia. However, suicide is not a criminal offense. This means that if someone wishes to take their own life they are legally permitted to do so. This does not allow for equality for a person who is physically incapable of taking their own life. Active voluntary euthanasia ensures that these physically deprived people have equal access to their life or death choices.

Voluntary Euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia is legal. This option entitles a person to decide that they wish to die and to refuse life prolonging medical intervention in the form of medicine or machines. This often means that the patient dies in a slow, painful and undignified manner. Active voluntary euthanasia would ensure the same end result, death, without the interim suffering.

For or Against Legalisation?

There are a good number of arguments against active voluntary euthanasia which must be taken into account in the decision to legalise the process.

Human Life is God Given and Sacred

The fact that human life is sacred implies that it should be immoral to take any action whatsoever to end life. This is a valuable piece of high ground for an anti-euthanasia campaign, but there are valid arguments that stand well against this one. Firstly there are mitigating circumstances, as discussed before, whereby medical intervention has already prolonged these lives and if it is morally wrong to interfere in the ending of a life, where is the moral justification for intervening in the first place? Without medical intervention we cannot know whether a person would have lived long enough to reach the stage of illness, pain and suffering that they have reached due to medical intervention. Secondly, where things are seen by some to be immoral they are not illegal. There is a feeling from many people globally that homosexuality is immoral, as is adultery; neither of these is illegal. Therefore the law cannot always dictate what is moral and vice versa.

Mis-diagnosis or Miracle Cure

There is the possibility of misdiagnosis or development of a cure that could be used to argue against active voluntary euthanasia. There is the chance that these things can happen but, though possible, they are unlikely in many cases and can be labelled improbable. In order for a legal ruling to be made on a situation the case has to be presented beyond all reasonable doubt'; if committing a criminal to prison for life can be decided on beyond all reasonable doubt' there is no valid argument why active voluntary euthanasia should not be granted in a situation beyond all reasonable doubt'.

The Hippocratic Oath

It is the duty of physicians to protect life and allowing active voluntary euthanasia could undermine this and cause confusion with regards to the role of a physician and the oath that they work to uphold. However, legalising active voluntary euthanasia does not imply that it becomes a decision to be taken lightly. It assumes that the patient is fully informed of his/her medical condition, prognosis and all available treatments, including alternative remedies and therapies. The patient must also be committed to euthanasia which could be tested by leaving a time period between the initial decision and the act itself to allow them to carefully consider their choice. Any patient considered must be in a situation where they have no quality of life and no potential for any in the future whatsoever. The patient must also be competent to make the decision; this could be ascertained through psychiatric evaluation.

Decision Under Duress

The possibility arises where a patient might opt for active voluntary euthanasia in order to spare family the expense of further medical costs or under counsel from the hospital where health care funds are rationed. This does not, however, stop voluntary euthanasia from still being legal and it gives able patients the opportunity to discontinue healthcare at any time. Why, therefore, should people who are physically incapable of this option be denied the same choices?

Giving Up Hope

It could be argued that the access to active voluntary euthanasia could cause patients to give up too easily. It is well known that patients who do not give up easily stand a better chance of recovery than those who lose hope. This argument does not, however, take into account that this is not the case in every situation. Active voluntary euthanasia is necessary primarily in cases where there is no longer hope or chance of recovery and it should be instigated in order to terminate the insufferable final deterioration and dying process of patients whose prognosis is for no recovery.

In light of the arguments for and against legalisation of active voluntary euthanasia it is apparent that the fact remains it should be legalised. Where there are strong points against the legalisation there are stronger counter arguments. It should at all times be maintained that the legalisation thereof should be subject to strict criteria and protocols so that the privilege is not abused by patients, physicians or family members and that each case is taken on its own merits. Medical advances mean that pain and illness can be alleviated to an immense extent, let us use that same medical ability to end the suffering when the last measure of life's quality is lost.