Euthanasia

Introduction

Euthanasia is the act of killing a severely ill person as an act of mercy. There are two forms of euthanasia. Negative euthanasia, sometimes called passive euthanasia, involves the withholding of treatment ("pulling the plug") with the knowledge that doing so will produce the death of the patient, such as may be stipulated in a living will, the second form, positive or "active" euthanasia, involves killing the severely ill person who would otherwise live, though in constant pain, coma, or other extreme conditions, as an act of mercy. Positive euthanasia is for this reason often called "mercy killing". In most states, positive euthanasia is now considered a form of murder and thus is not permitted under law. (Torr, p.102)

Discussion

Euthanasia is considered to be a compassionate means of bringing an end to a patient's sufferings and pain. Significant controversy surrounds the question of whether or not the fear of terminal pain and suffering underlie the entire demand for euthanasia and whether modem medicine is doing enough to eliminate such pain and suffering. This argument is straightforward, but problematic. The major impetus, at least in countries, for the Legalization of euthanasia is focused on the right to self-determination. It does not follow, indeed it seems contradictory, to place the power of life and death in the hands of others, even if they act out of mercy and compassion. Acting “mercifully”—without clear and certain direction from an incompetent patient, as some who advocate euthanasia would do—violates the ideal of self-determination. Critics of the “merciful ending” interpretation claim that a society cannot weigh in at the end of someone's life with a kinder, gentler way out when it has “starved the aged and dying of compassion for many of their declining years.”” A country must earn the moral option to kill for mercy by supporting the lives of its citizens with compassion and mercy. (Hall, p.248)

It is feared that the option of euthanasia may become the only realistic alternative offered to a significant proportion of the elderly and dying. The society kills out of “convenience, not compassion,” opines one anti-euthanasia ethicist. The compassion of a society must be visible throughout its social fabric, not just as life unravels at its edges. (Arras, p.111)

William F. May is a severe critic of the argument for euthanasia from compassion. According to him, there is a possibility for active euthanasia to become final solution for handling the problem of the aged poor. As a greater proportion of society ages and strains the already insufficient social security and welfare systems, this issue will become one of critical concern. He feels that the true test of a compassionate society lies not in investing even more money in acute-care facilities, but in shifting medical priorities to preventative, rehabilitative, long-term, and terminal care health services, which would provide all patients with a realistic alternative to a quick death. (May, p.114)

May is not confident that reasonable alternatives for the aged and aging will suppress the discussion on euthanasia altogether. The Netherlands, after all, has ...