Thursday, August 23, 2007

Points Pro-euthanasia campaigners are saying to legalize euthanasia

Balancing the Scales
If we look with an equal eye at the arguments given by both supporters and denouncers of Euthanasia, we might have trouble taking sides. The fact is both sides seem to have valid points in their favour. To know what these points are, let us take a close scrutiny at their claims.

The Pro-choice Argument

Regardless of reminders of the Nazi misuse of Euthanasia, the pro-euthanasia campaigners do have a genuinely strong case for its legalization.
Participants include both family members who believe that their close ones who had painful deaths could have been saved from such suffering had they been allowed by law to Euthanasia, and doctors who have seen their patients in terminal conditions suffer intensely.

A) The Right to Die
The argument begins with the assertion that there does exist such a thing as the 'Right to Die'. Patients suffering intense pain have the right to say, "Enough of this. I want to die" and their choice must be respected. This brings in the slogan, 'Death with Dignity'. Furthermore, they argue if doctors are expected to be compassionate to their patients why can't this apply when the patient is dying? A person who is neither dead nor living is like a living corpse. In diseases like cancer where intense pain is experienced, if such pain is not properly managed, the patient experiences a living hell.

B) Living Will
An important development in this regard is the formulation of laws in some countries - e.g. Denmark - providing for a Living Will. This means that you can make a will, when you are still healthy, in which you state the kinds of conditions during extreme ill health when you want your treatment to be stopped. This also has another name - Advance directive. Such a directive can also include the 'Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care' in which you empower another person to make the decision for you if you are unable to yourself.

C) Not sufficient pain control
Usually, patients ask for Euthanasia when their physical pain becomes unbearable. Although vast improvements have been made in pain-control know-how, there are instances when all the known technologies cannot bring relief to a patient.

D) Should be voluntary
For a segment of the pro-choice movement mercy killing is out of the question. The patient has to state explicitly that he wants Euthanasia. This rules out for them also abortions of deformed foetuses during pregnancy and like babies immediately after birth as well as mentally handicapped patients who cannot state their death wish.

E) Assisted suicide
There are countries where suicide is not illegal but Euthanasia is. Because the latter is also taken as an 'assisted suicide', the pro-choice activists ask the question - "If suicide is legal, why is the means to it not so?" Scotland is one such country where the pro-choice supporters are crusading for the rectification of what they call an inconsistent law.

F) Public support
In many cases, the pro-euthanasia movement believes that the public is behind it. Take for example the 1936 bill in England that was rejected by the parliament. Even though they failed to get Euthanasia legalized, the movement truly believed public sympathy was with them.

All said, the pro-choice movement is still careful in stressing the fundamental fact that although they believe a patient has the right to die if he wants to, legalization of Euthanasia should only be carried out with the imposition of specific conditions and stringent requirements to prevent its misuse.

No comments: