1 

Do you have the Right to Die? 

Chelsea Pitt- The Law in Action assessment task. 
─  
Euthanasia 
What is Euthanasia? 
Euthanasia, what some call mercy killing, is one of the most contentious and emotional issues 
currently relating to the Law.  
The subject of Euthanasia provokes sentimental feelings because it involves ending a human 
life. Euthanasia is the act of killing yourself, permitting or helping someone to die under 
different circumstances. It combines 2 Ancient Greek words- eu (meaning good or happy) & 
thanatos (meaning death).  
Customarily, it involves a person who is gravely ill, injured or dying and near death, but this 
isn’t always the case. The purpose of Euthanasia is to avert or end suffering resulting from an 
injury or illness. The principle itself is one of the main reasons that the controversy 
surrounding Euthanasia is occurring. Albeit an individual has rights and responsibilities about 
their own health, this does not extend to controlling the way they die.  
There are quite distinctive differences between Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, being that 
Euthanasia consent comes from the patient whereas assisted suicide is the act of someone 
assisting another in suicide. In modern society, euthanasia now means a lot more than just a good 
death.  
 
What is the current legal status on this matter in Australia? 
Euthanasia is currently illegal in Australia, but for a period of time was legalised in the 
Northern Territory. The rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, legalised Euthanasia, however this 
was nullified in 1997.  
According to the Parliament of Australia, a patient has no legal right to insist on medical 
treatment to end their life. Doctors and physicians also can be troubled in this situation 
because even if a doctor wishes to acquiesce to the patient's request of assistance with 
euthanasia, the criminal law generally prevents them doing so. In consideration of this, the 
law relating to Euthanasia NSW is the Crimes Act, and states that murder has been committed 
if a person causes somebody's death by acting with “reckless indifference” to a human's life or 
​ ebates about death and rights to life have existed since ancient 
with “intention to kill”. ​ D
times, however, it is only in the 20th century that Euthanasia has become a dominant issue.   
 

 
 
 2 
  

What is the current legal stance around the world? 

There are many laws around this quandary, so where is the practice of Euthanasia permitted 
and legalised? Countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg permit b ​ oth 
euthanasia and assisted suicide, Switzerland charters assisted suicide if the person aiding acts 
unselfishly, Columbia allows euthanasia, US States California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont 
and Montana all give consent for assisted dying to be practiced, and in February 2016, 
Canada gave permission for Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide to be legalised.   
How did the law change in these places? In the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide 
were effectively codified in the interest and defence of doctors. Columbia’s, Montana’s and 
Canada’s courts also changed the law on the basis of human rights claims.  
In these countries and states, must the person be suffering? Sufficiently, the Netherlands, 
Canada and Belgium states that the patient's suffering must be oppressive, with no 
manifestation of improving, The 5 US states permit assisted dying only, so the patient must be 
terminally ill.   
 
Death with Dignity ​or​ Respecting the Divinity of Life: 
As ​Jack Kevorkian​ says, death is not a crime. His beliefs galvanise society to see that in his 
professional mind, the positives rule over the negatives. The Right to die has valid points for 
both opinions. Because there is many options for this contention, there will always be 2 sides 
to this altercation. There are 2 chief reasons on both positive and negative.  
The positives to this descriptor include: 
1. A person who is suffering and is in adversity, should receive the right to decide what 
should be done with their life. They need to be permitted the freedom to be able to choose 
what body treatments they seize. Additionally, if the treatment is unavailable, and a person is 
unable to bear the suffering, they should also be able to painlessly end their life. 
2. Furthermore, Euthanasia has extensive financial ramifications and implications. 
Sufferers who are fatally ill or endure an incurable disease can appoint to get medical 
attention but in most cases the patient will not be saved. So prolonging the life of someone 
who will eventually not make it, is going to put families into financial arrears. Perpetuating 
lives will also lead to heartache, physical and mental challenges, and futility. Instead, 
Euthanasia could reduce all of those complications. 
The refutations to this quandary include: 
1. Essentially, even the finest doctors and physicians cannot securely predict the period of 
death and whether there is a possibility of remission with extensive treatment. To a small 
degree, it would be quite preposterous to legalise it as it would mean unlawful patients dying 

 
 3 
  

that could have conceivably survived later. Legalising Euthanasia could be commissioning law 
abusers. 
2. Activists often claim that Euthanasia could potentially lead to the “slippery slope effect”, 
which is when a patient isn't able to voice their ambitions, are put to death like the decrepit, 
baby, or someone who is in a coma. It would have a colossal impact on healthcare along with 
causing victimisation of the most vulnerable groups in society e.g. Babies, the Elderly. 
Considering this perchance, Euthanasia could potentially change its appellation from “right to 
die” to “right to kill.’’   
 
​What is the Catholics perspective on Euthanasia? 
The mindset of Catholics is completely against Euthanasia.​ ​Their respective arguments consist 
of the belief that life is given by God, and that all things including people are made in God’s 
image for the distinctive destiny of sharing in God’s own life. Birth and death are processes of 
life also created by God, and Catholics also postulate that there is an importance of not 
interfering with the natural process of life. Even though some agnostics would disagree with 
this, Catholics believe that nobody should ask to get euthanized because no one has the 
political right to value anyone, including themselves, as worthless. Pope John Paul II, said 
numerous times that “Euthanasia is a grave violence of the law of God, since it is deliberate 
and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.” This exemplifies the Catholic beliefs of 
intrinsic dignity and the value of human lives. Although, some features of Catholicism suggest 
that there are some obligations opposing the common view of Euthanasia. These include that 
Christianity requires us to respect everyone and their beliefs, that the community should care 
for the sick, provide the best possible care and also accept their analytical decisions. 
 

Problems that could arise if Euthanasia is legalised:  

Why is it that people are so adamant about legalising Euthanasia? Is it true that modern 
medicine has extended our life span and that most countries lack curative care? 
Acknowledging this, there are many factors that are taken into consideration when assessing 
what problems could emerge. These include: 
1. Individualism- ​In this context, people could supposedly take the law for granted, by 
using the “slippery slope effect.” This is basically where the law draws a fine line between 
voluntary Euthanasia (deciding the final result for the patient if they are mentally unstable to) 
and murder.  
2. Media- ​In distinction to the media, first we started off with books, then print media, 
finally film and today's television and social media, could all abuse the situation of legislating 
Euthanasia. 

 
 4 
  

3. Death Denial and Control- ​Society today is death obsessed. The topic of “death talk’’ is 
rarely engaged and sanctioned. As humans, this needs to turn into a reversed situation to 
adapt people. Disputably relating it back to the media, the subject of “death talk’’ could 
potentially end up greatly violated. 
4. Fear- P
​ ublicly, we are frightened as individuals, expressing the fear of crime principally. 
If euthanasia were legalised, it could be presented as a way of converting death by chance, to 
death by choice, which would overture extended despair from the thought of knowing ‘‘when’’ 
somebody is going to die. 
5. Genetic Disadvantages- ​Among the upcoming generations, Euthanasia could steadily 
change into the “norm” and become a massive trend in society. In the future it would be seen 
as being “accepted”​. 
 
Stakeholders 
If Euthanasia was legalised, there are many associates and patients who are affected both 
positively and negatively.  
People who are positively impacted include: 
❖ Sick and gravely ill people. 
❖ Mental and Physically unstable beings.   
❖ Family and friends who are watching their loved one be in pain and suffer. 
❖ Health funds- Not having to provide for people who will just not survive in the end.  
People who are resentfully affected include: 
❖ Family and Friends who have to watch a cherished one die. 
❖ People who are involved with the process could be mentally scarred for life as they just 
‘helped someone die.’ 
Experts Opinion 
Dr ​Philip Nitschke​, also known as ‘Doctor Death’ is an extreme euthanasia defender. Nitschke’s 
campaigning was successful enough to get Euthanasia passed by the law in the Northern 
Territory and assisted 4 people in ending their lives, being the first doctor to give a lethal 
injection, before the dilemma was reversed again. “The conditions the board sought to 
impose on me (and by extension, all doctors in Australia) amounts to a heavy-handed and 
clumsy attempt to restrict the free flow of information on end-of-life choice,” he said, 
affirming to elude the medical board​. As he does with great sadness, he burns his medical 
certificate to end his career and show how ardent he is about euthanasia. 

 
 5 
  

A suggested resolution: 
I firmly agree that euthanasia should be legalised under important circumstances. These 
include: 
❖ The patient is terminally ill and shows no sign of improving. 
❖ That it should be done legally (not sneakily), which will provide more comfort for the patient. 
❖ The doctor agrees that it is the correct thing to do. 
❖ If the patient requires assistance because they are in a mentally unstable coma, then the 
person helping must act respectfully and prove that they are doing the correct thing for the 
patient. 
 
Care not Killing- Conclusion- Should this quandary be legalised? 
I doubtlessly conceive that euthanasia should explicitly be legalised for a few elementary and 
transparent reasons.  
 
First and foremost, dying is a part of life. It is a private matter, and if it is not harming others, 
the law should not interfere. Even though it is hard to believe, death can be a good ​or​ bad. 
Think about this; if your pet was suffering and in pain, then you would put it down to reduce 
agony and put it out of its misery, so why can’t we do the same if a human is anguishing. It is 
not a very humane thing to watch someone suffer and be in pain.  
 
Secondly, euthanasia can be exceptionally beneficial and benign to hospitals as it can reduce 
healthcare costs and free up required hospital beds. If you keep a patient in hospital even if 
their case is terminal and they're suffering, it takes up hospital beds that could be desperately 
needed but if you euthanized a patient who was lethally ill and was never going to improve in 
their health, then that would reverse the situation of lack of equipment. Considering this 
position, in a very perplexing way, it will help peacefully kill people, but also save others (if in 
need of hospital care and beds). Also, patients who are surviving on machines and expensive 
treatments, can be very costly to families who may not be able to afford those treatments so 
they rely on healthcare groups, which can reverse this and the health protection groups will 
start falling into debt, which in small ways could affect our economy. 
 
Conclusively, I believe that self-conviction is one of the primary elements that makes us 
human. Determination has the ability to see our prospect as humans. Think of you ‘living’ a 
life where illness has left you unable to perform the basics of life like breathing, moving, 
eating or even making decisions or thinking for yourself. Would you not start believing that 
your worth as a person continues to minimise until you die? You would most likely lose your 
“sense of self,’’ which is one of the vital foundations of our human dignity.