Also known as mercy killing, euthanasia refers to the practice or act of painlessly killing individuals suffering from painful and incurable conditions through withdrawing artificial life-support systems or withholding treatments. Currently, most countries lack euthanasia’s provisions in their legal systems. Therefore, the practice or act is usually treated as either murder when performed by another person or suicide, if performed by the patient himself or herself. Usually, euthanasia takes two forms, involuntary and non-voluntary. While voluntary euthanasia involves termination of a patient’s life following his or her express request, in a non-voluntary type, the patient usually is not in a position to express himself or herself. Therefore, the decision to terminate the patient’s life is made by the patient’s doctor or relatives. Regardless of the type or form, in the recent past, euthanasia has stirred a lot of public debate. In general, the debate has always revolved around the legality and morality of euthanasia. Within these debates, individuals and institutions have questioned the morality of terminating a person’s life with or without his consent. At the same time, people have queried the logic behind letting someone suffer when the eventuality of the sufferings is death. With these questions remaining unanswered, yet, it is apparent that the debate on euthanasia’s morality is never-ending any time soon. But it should be allowed, of course, with certain conditions attached. Euthanasia can be an ethical practice, but the patient should have to be of sound mind to make the decision, and the condition should be terminal. Therefore, it should only be used to end suffering.
Autonomy has been the most widely used argument for euthanasia. Autonomy has always been used in conjunction with an individual’s right to die. Euthanasia proponents usually argue that imposing a ban on euthanasia would translate into considerable restrictions on individuals’ rights and privileges to govern their lives. In other words, the ban would deny competent individuals the ability to shape or determine their deaths. In Western society, one of the fundamental values that an individual has is autonomy. Therefore, it is worthy of protection. As per the autonomy argument, individuals, while asking for mercy killing, express their personal decision/choice, realizing their freedom. The euthanasia request is part of individuals’ freedom to terminate their lives. Thus, the request, mainly when done by a competent person, is fundamental freedom defining the conditions and framework of his or her life. In other words, the freedom to opt for euthanasia is the freedom to decide how life should be lived and ended. Asking for euthanasia, therefore, means ending a life in a pre-arranged manner, without the loss of control of one’s dying process and death. In this regard, the practice is an execution of freedom/control over an individual’s death and life. Therefore, legalization promotes and protects the autonomy of a person. In contrast, criminalization of the act restricts the autonomy. For autonomy reason, if euthanasia is done with the sole purpose of terminating suffering, they should not only be considered ethical but also legalized.
Besides autonomy, the right to die has also been a widely used argument for euthanasia. In the recent past, studies on the right to die have been published, and the right to life ethics has always been reflected in them. In certain instances, the right to die and euthanasia have been equated or used simultaneously. The proponents of the right to life argument for euthanasia have always asserted that euthanasia is not only an expression of an individual’s fundamental freedom but also their rights. Therefore, it would only be morally prudent if persons were granted the choice to have control over what they do with their bodies or lives. According to XXXX, “this right is understood as a moral right which can be claimed as a moral warrant or as a legal right supported by law which can be claimed in the legal sense.” In simpler terms, the argument confers every individual the right to die. The euthanasia proponents argue that the term ‘right’ as used in this context has multiple meanings. It includes the individuals’ power of specifying the circumstances and conditions of their death and dying. It, therefore, involves a person’s autonomy or freedom of determining how and when he or she wants to die. In most cases, patients exercise this freedom in their death beds, particularly when suffering from severe, painful, and incurable conditions. In such cases, it would only be prudent to show respect to the request made by a suffering person. In this case, it would be ethical if euthanasia is used in ending a person’s life, willingly. It is based on this reason that the proponents of euthanasia argue that it is morally right to allow individuals to exercise their freedom and rights over how they live their lives or even die, especially at times when they are severely suffering from fatal, incurable conditions or diseases. In such instances, it would be morally to end an individual’s suffering through euthanasia. Apart from the pain, the person would have given an express concept for his death.
Unbearable suffering is another argument for euthanasia. Individuals would be so quick to assume that since the right to die is not expressly stated anywhere, it would not be sufficient enough to constitute the moral requirement for legalizing or accepting as right euthanasia. At the same time, the autonomy argument may not be that convincing to justify euthanasia. It is no doubt that every competent person has her or his autonomy. However, in the euthanasia case, justification of free choice would require additional conditions. Otherwise, regardless of their circumstances – whether in severe suffering or not – every person would be able to request euthanasia. For this reason, the unbearable suffering comes in to fill in the gaps left by the right to death and autonomous arguments. Unbearable suffering is an extension of the autonomous argument. The argument provides or considers ethical, only extreme sufferings, and an individual cannot tolerate it. In other words, it clearly states that “not every painful process within health care entitles one to ask for euthanasia, but only great ongoing pain and suffering which trespass one’s faculty to tolerate it can be a legitimate reason to request euthanasia.” Euthanasia’s opponents and proponents have seemed to buy into the argument’s idea. However, they disagree when it comes to the extent to which the end gets justified by the means. The question that still lingers in people’s minds is this: When should suffering be considered unbearable? As provided by the argument, unbearable pain is that which goes beyond a person’s capacity and will to tolerate or bear. It is this condition that has been placed on the autonomy argument to make it a little bit more ‘acceptable.’ Thus, from an ethical point of view and on compassionate grounds, it is morally appropriate to assist individuals not to suffer unbearable pain.
On various grounds, euthanasia’s opponents have sought to argue that the practice is unethical. The religious counter-argument has been the most common. According to this argument, only the Supreme Being has the right to give and take away life. Therefore, under no circumstance can ‘murder’ be morally justifiable. The second counter-argument, which is more secular, is obligation-based. It stipulates that a patient’s right to die does not confer another person an obligation to carry on with euthanasia. Besides, the individual’s obligations to others limit their rights. Even though individuals may have the right to die, they also have obligations to other people, including healthcare professionals, friends, families, and partners. Therefore, enacting euthanasia or the right to die affects these particular individuals. As a result, they conclude that the practice is unethical. Another counter-argument posits that “no one is obliged to do what the other person requests, especially in cases when there is a conflict in the moral assessment regarding the requested action.” While the free, independent will of the patient should be respected, then freedom of choice of the person being asked to perform euthanasia must also be considered. All these counter-arguments make sense, but the question that remains unanswered is this: Is there morality in seeing other people suffer severely and do nothing about it? Respecting express or implied request of a severely suffering person waiting for his or her death is for the greater good. It would be unethical to let an individual struggle with bearing the unbearable condition, let alone disrespecting his or her express call to end his/her life. If anything, euthanasia in cases of unbearable suffering is for the greater good. It saves the patient from pain. At the same time, it keeps families, relatives, and friends from seeing their loved ones suffer, yet they can do nothing to help them. Besides, the free up resources for other patients with manageable conditions.
Conclusively, euthanasia can be an ethical practice, but the patient should have to be of sound mind to make the decision, and the condition should be terminal. Therefore, it should only be used to end suffering. The three arguments that have been widely used in support of the practice include the right to die, autonomy, and unbearable condition arguments. All these reasons seek to validate the ethicality or morality surrounding euthanasia. However, religious, among other counter-arguments, have sought to oppose the morality of the practice under every circumstance. As the debate on the morality of euthanasia continues, there are many unanswered questions. One of them includes; Is there morality in seeing other people suffer severely and do nothing about it?