•WHAT IS EUTHANASIA?

- Euthanasia refers to deliberately ending someone’s life, usually to relieve suffering. Doctors
sometimes perform euthanasia when it’s requested by people who have a terminal illness and are in
a lot of pain. It is also known as mercy killing.

- A person who undergoes euthanasia usually has an incurable condition. But there are other
instances where some people want their life to be ended.

- In many cases, it is carried out at the person's request but there are times when they may be
too ill and the decision is made by relatives, medics or, in some instances, the courts.

- As of 2006 euthanasia had become the most active area of research in bioethics. In most
countries, euthanasia is against the law and it may carry a jail sentence. In the United States, the
law varies between states.

- The word “euthanasia” itself comes from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos”
(death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death,
euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death.”

- Euthanasia is against the law in the UK where it is illegal to help anyone kill themselves.
Voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide can lead to imprisonment of up to 14 years.

- The issue has been at the centre of very heated debates for many years and is surrounded by
religious, ethical and practical considerations.

- Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against their will
(involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost universally
condemned. During the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, in Germany, Adolf Hitler carried out a
program to exterminate children with disabilities (with or without their parent’s permission) under
the guise of improving the Aryan “race” and reducing costs to society.
•CLASSIFICATION/TYPES OF EUTHANASIA

1. Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a
lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

2. Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such
as a ventilator or feeding tube. Some ethicists distinguish between withholding life support
and withdrawing life support (the patient is on life support but then removed from it).

3. Voluntary euthanasia: with the consent of the patient.

4. Involuntary euthanasia: without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is
unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown. Some ethicists distinguish between “involuntary”
(against the patient’s wishes) and “non-voluntary” (without the patient’s consent but wishes are
unknown) forms.

5. Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.

6. Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of
death.

7. Mercy-killing: The term “mercy-killing” usually refers to active, involuntary or non-voluntary,

other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit
consent to end the patient’s suffering.

8. Physician-assisted suicide: The phrase “physician-assisted suicide” refers to active, voluntary,

assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a
means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.
•The ethics of euthanasia

Euthanasia raises a number of agonising moral dilemmas:

 Is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain and
suffering?

 Under what circumstances can euthanasia be justifiable, if at all?

 Is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die?

• ARGUMENTS FOR EUTHANASIA

1. The right to die should be a personal choice, not one that the government mandates:

- Individuals have the right to choose numerous paths in life that can take them in a variety of
different directions. Most of those actions receive very little, if any, governmental interference.

- People have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate

- This is also known as 'the autonomy argument'. Some believe that every patient has a right to
choose when to die.

2. There is more control over the final decisions in life:

- The end of a person’s life is the beginning of a financial journey for their loved ones. Debts are
not wiped away at death. Their estate becomes responsible to pay off remaining obligations and
handle other items of business.

- It can take years sometimes to settle complex financial issues. When euthanasia is part of the
conversation for someone with a terminal illness, then there can be more planning involved to make
this transition easier on everyone else.

- By having more control over the final decision of life, the emotional and physical toll of an illness
can be reduced for everyone involved.

- It is not just relief for the person who is suffering. The rest of the family can find peace
knowing that there is a planned time to create an end to this situation.
3. Patients can avoid the issue of caregiver guilt with euthanasia:

- One of the most significant challenges that occur with a terminal diagnosis is the emotions of
guilt and shame that a patient has with regards to their caregivers. They begin to feel like a
burden on the people they love, creating a reaction that can cause relationship challenges because it
is only natural to push people away to help them to avoid pain.

- Legalizing euthanasia might not be a popular option in some circles, but it can create organization
for the transitory time that everyone experiences in a situation such as this one.

- By helping someone to find the physical peace they need, there can be a process of emotional
healing that can help everyone push through their grief with greater consistency.

4. Death is still going to happen, one way or the other:

- The advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia should be rightfully debated, but people cannot
dictate an outside sense of morality or ethics on a person who is trying to manage a terminal
diagnosis.

- These people are already working toward an end-of-life scenario. If they decide not to take
advantage of this legal process, there is an excellent chance that they will pass away in the near
future anyway.

5. Refusing care:

- Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognised in law, including medical treatment that
sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment
or deny feeds through a nasogastric tube.

- Recognition of the right to refuse treatment gives a way for passive euthanasia.

6. Encouraging the organ transplantation:

- Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This,
in turn, will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation.

- Not only euthanasia gives ‘Right to die’ for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life‘ for the
organ needy patients.
• ARGUMENTS AGAINST EUTHANASIA
BCRIMINALISED?

1. There can be issues with consent when looking at euthanasia:

- The legalization of euthanasia works when a physician is willing to provide this option for their
patient.

- However, there are times when a doctor is unwilling to provide a lethal prescription for their
own ethical reasons.

- Doctors need the option to get out of this program just as much as a patient deserves a second
option.

2. Euthanasia medication doesn’t always deliver on its promised result:

- The State of Oregon tracked the results of patients who took lethal prescriptions as part of
the Death with Dignity Act for two decades, starting in 1998.

- This data found that seven people regained consciousness after taking the medication, and one
person was even alive after the study period still fighting their disease. Another 1,179 people out
of 1,857 qualifying patients had a successful result from their encounter with the euthanasia
program.

- The legalization of euthanasia is not a guaranteed outcome. When someone makes this decision
and it doesn’t work as intended, it places them and their doctor into an almost impossible
situation.

3. Euthanasia could allow people to choose death for reasons that go beyond an illness:

- When surveying individuals who qualify for a euthanasia program, over 90% said that it was their
“loss of autonomy” that was driving their decision – not the actual diagnosis of a terminal illness.

- The survey asked patients to choose any reason that applied, and 90% of people also chose a
restriction in their usual activities as a primary factor in their choice.

- Only 1 in 4 people who decide to pursue the idea of euthanasia say that pain is an influencing
factor in their decision.
4. Euthanasia would require a change to the legal and medical statutes in most countries:

- Although the United States, the Netherlands, and other countries which offer euthanasia at some
level would require little in the way of legislation to permit this practice, it would require a
complete overhaul of the criminal justice system in others.

- Even in the U.S., the judicial system has found that an individual does not have a Constitutional
right to ask for a prescription that could end their life.

5. Euthanasia avoids the benefits of palliative care:

- Instead of trying to improve the life of a patient who has a terminal diagnosis, euthanasia seeks
to take what remains of a person’s life away from them.

- Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary.

- Palliative care is specialized medical care for people living with a serious illness. This type of care is
focused on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of the illness. The goal is to improve
quality of life for both the patient and the family.

6. Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.

7. Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives:

- Some doctors and opponents of PAS are concerned about the ethical complications doctors could
face. For more than 2,500 years, doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath. This oath encourages
doctors to care for and never harm those under their care.

8. There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia.

•QUOTES ON EUTHANASIA

1. “The killing of a disabled person is not 'compassionate'. It is not 'euthanasia'. It is murder.”-

Stella Young

2. “Dying is not a crime.”- Jack Kevorkian

3. “Euthanasia ... is simply to be able to die with dignity at a moment when life is devoid of
it.”- Marya Mannes
•MODEL ESSAY ON EUTHANASIA.

Should Euthanasia be legalized?

According to the International anti-euthanasia Task Force, “Euthanasia is defined as intentionally

making someone die rather than allowing them to die naturally.” Euthanasia is a serious topic
today. It is a crime rather than a cure and at the same time it is an answer to the suffering of
the dying patient. This creates a controversy on whether euthanasia is good or bad. Thus, is
euthanasia a solution to the torture of dying patients and their relatives, or is it just a way to
eliminate bedridden patients?

Euthanasia relieves patients from severe pain permanently. If a terminal patient faces a long, slow,
painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them from this suffering and allow them to end
their life comfortably. “O, let him pass. He hates him. That would upon the rack of this tough
world. Stretch him out longer”, a phrase from a writing of Shakespeare, clearly says that instead
of giving a painful death it is better for a person to die with peace. A public opinion poll by Angus
Reid, dated 26th July 2012, states that 80% respondents of Canada support Euthanasia.
Similarly, according to the Gallop Poll, 54% of the people around the world support Euthanasia.
So, euthanasia alleviates the unendurable sufferings of the dying patients.

Euthanasia reduces the medical expenses of a country. “Savings to governments could become a
consideration. Drugs cost much less, making them far less expensive than providing medical cure” as
written in an article by Rita Marker JD, Kathie Hamlen of International Task force on euthanasia
and assisted suicide. This way euthanasia helps to save medical funds by cutting the amount of
medical resource used by the sick patients who are usually incurable. Hence, euthanasia curbs down
the medical expenses of a country and the savings can be utilized in alternative developmental
projects.
In contrary, euthanasia may substitute the existing medical treatment because of its cheapness.
In the US the drugs used for euthanasia cost around $35 whereas treatment cost will be
significantly more expensive than this, and can amount to 35000 or 40000 United States
Dollars depending upon the types and nature of the ailment. This vast difference of money can
cause people to go for euthanasia rather than medical cure especially if the treatment is
unaffordable. A study conducted on 2012 by Euthanasia Statistics found that 32 % of assisted
deaths are done without the request of the patients but his/her relatives. This clearly shows
that many are going for euthanasia rather than costly treatment process. Hence, in future
euthanasia may turn to become a means of health care and contentment rather than a means of
mercy killing.

Euthanasia is a rejection of importance or the value of human life. There is a verse in Bible which
states, “You shall not murder”, whereas euthanasia violates this religious rule. It may seem to
be related with right to freedom of people but it gradually devaluates human life. One cannot
give up his life just in the name of some incurable disease. Similarly, if a patient cannot speak
for himself, his/her relatives should not be given the right to decide whether to kill him or not.
Again, doctors get the official license to kill people as it is in their discretionary power that the
decision is taken. The unethical doctors and people can abuse this power, and even further reduce
the value of human life.

In conclusion, euthanasia is a controversial topic with both merits and demerits. On one hand, it
can relieve patients from their unendurable pain or suffering as well as cut down medical
expenditure, but on the other hand, it depreciates the value of human life by providing a
substitute to medical treatment in complicated cases and by providing room for unethical
activities. If we go on to debate on the pros and cons, we will not be able to reach any specific
conclusion. Therefore, what we should do is provide a special provision in the law to dispense
euthanasia, only in the highly sensitive and demanding cases, under the direct but impartial and
independent supervision of the government.