GEC 4-ETHICS

EUTHANASIA

OCTOBER 2021
 EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is defined as “killing someone who is very sick or

injured in order to prevent any more suffering.” (Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary)

Mercy killings appear in the news from time to time. Often the killers seem to be

well motivated, desiring to put sufferers out of their misery when physicians offer no hope

of improvement. Sometimes the sufferers even plead with others to put them to death.

Euthanasia has been a global moral issue that has been debated for a long time now.

Euthanasia comes in a variety of forms. What is chosen is determined by a number

of elements, including one's viewpoint and level of awareness.

Physician-aided suicide(PAS) refers to when a doctor intentionally assists

someone with ending their life. This person is most certainly going through a long period

of pain and their doctor will assess which procedure is the most effective and painless.

Giving someone a deadly dose of a sedative on purpose is referred to as active

euthanasia. On the other hand, withholding or limiting life-sustaining therapies to hasten

a person's death is frequently referred to as passive euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is

when a person makes a conscious decision to seek assistance in ending their life. In

contrast to voluntary euthanasia, when someone else makes the decision to end

someone's life in nonvoluntary euthanasia. The decision is frequently made by a close

family member. (Legg,2019)

EUTHANASIA IN NETHERLANDS

Though euthanasia was widely reported, it was illegal in the Netherlands until

1973, when Geertruida Postma, a doctor, was found guilty of giving her terminally sick

mother a death injection in the Postma Case. Instead of the maximum term of 12 years,

the court chose to give Dr. Postma a one-week suspended sentence and one-week

probation. The courts established a set of circumstances under which euthanasia and

physician-assisted suicide would not be penalized as a result of the Postma Case and

others. With an officially tolerated euthanasia practice since 1985, a patchwork law in

1994, and a fully fledged euthanasia law in 2002, the Netherlands was the first country

in the world to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (henceforth

"euthanasia").

The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review

Procedures) Act legalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for Dutch residents

over the age of 12 on April 1, 2002. Physicians who conduct the procedures will be

protected from criminal culpability, according to the Act, which also establishes standards

for physicians to follow in order to legally euthanize or help a patient in suicide.

In the Netherlands, the annual rate of euthanasia as a percentage of all deaths increased

from 1.9 percent in 1990 to 4.4 percent in 2017. The lack of research on regional patterns

necessitates a deeper understanding of euthanasia's geographical variance and related

explanations.

With 28 years of legal euthanasia, the Netherlands has large-scale, unexplained

geographic variance in euthanasia rates. Other countries that have legalized or are
considering legalizing physician-assisted death may see similar trends. The fraction of

the variety that remains unexplained could involve the likelihood that some aspects of

euthanasia practice will have to be understood in terms of underuse, overuse, or misuse.

EUTHANASIA IN BELGIUM

Belgium permits euthanasia and assisted suicide for people who are in

excruciating pain with no hope of improvement. There is a one-month waiting time before

euthanasia can be conducted if the patient is not terminally sick.

Belgium does not have an age limit for children, but they must have a fatal illness to be

approved.

On September 3, 2002, the Belgian Act on Euthanasia, which went into force on

May 28, 2002, legalized both euthanasia and PAS for “competent” adults and

emancipated adolescents suffering from “constant and intolerable physical or mental pain

that cannot be alleviated.” The patients do not have to be in the latter stages of their

illnesses. The law was extended to adolescents on February 13, 2014. After the

Netherlands in 2001, Belgium became the second country to legalize euthanasia.

In Belgium, 2,444 persons committed what is known as assisted suicide in 2020.

In Belgium, a criterion for active euthanasia is that the patient's sickness must be terminal

and that they must be in excruciating agony with no effective treatment available. Cancers

and various pathologies are the most common conditions that cause such a requirement.
EUTHANASIA IN THE PHILIPPINES

In the Philippines, euthanasia is illegal. The Philippine Senate debated whether or

not to enact a measure authorizing passive euthanasia, the withdrawal of treatment or

life-sustaining machinery, in 1997. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Senate

Bill 1887 on October 14, 2013, which would have legalized passive euthanasia. In the

Senate, the bill was defeated.

The Catholic Church in the country was outspoken in its opposition to the law. The

Philippines would have become the first country to legalize euthanasia if it had been

approved. Doctors who help a patient in dying might be imprisoned and punished with

malpractice under present legislation. In many cases, the church has been perceived as

a barrier to health officials and medical practitioners over the years.

Patients should be permitted to leave the hospital before paying in full for their

treatment, according to another proposal in the Patients' Rights Bill. In the Philippines,

almost all hospitals are privately owned, and many owners are concerned that patients

may leave without paying.

Several jurisdictions outside of the Philippines have already recognized such ability

to control, limited in the medical field, by capacitating a patient to determine the extent of

his treatment at the end of his life through mechanisms called advance directives. Though

recognized by practice in the Philippine medical setting, the lack of an explicit legal

framework for advance directives in end-of-life care raises problems in the enforceability

of such directives and muddles the scope of patients' rights.

CONCLUSION

Death is not something to look forward to, but it is also not necessary to make

desperate efforts to prolong the dying process.

Euthanasia produces a hive of discussion and debate for many people around the

world. Doctors, physicians, educators, government, religions, and many other individuals

differs in their perspectives towards the issue. Some agreed and some disagreed.

I have read an article online in where it talks about a man who killed his wife

because she apparently was the hopeless victim of multiple sclerosis, a disease of the

central nervous system. Incidents like this raise the contentious issue of euthanasia or

"mercy killing". The proponents of euthanasia claim that this is still another reason why a

law permitting euthanasia should be passed. Others argue that there are no exceptions

to God's commandment, "You shall not kill," and therefore euthanasia constitutes murder.

In cases like this, what should my mentality be? Should mercy killing, which is not

motivated by malice or hatred, be legalized? Is it ethical to use euthanasia, which involves

intentionally killing someone or letting a terminally ill person to die by refusing to start or

continue extraordinary therapy that would only delay death for a short time?

There is no doubt that dealing with such situations is difficult. It's possible that very

strong emotions are involved, making it difficult to make sound decisions. But what if the

decision is between starting or continuing exceptional therapy in the face of impending

mortality that cannot be avoided? Medical authorities may claim that the best they can do

is prolong the patient's death by using mechanical devices such as respirators to keep

the lungs breathing, cardiac stimulators, and other exceptional methods to keep the
patient alive. Such operations could be exceedingly costly and cause the dying person

additional suffering.

As a result, deciding whether to withhold extraordinary care in many cases of

severe sickness is quite difficult. The fact that there appears to be no hope for the person

who is suffering is frequently cited as a cause for considering euthanasia.

Yes, God's word makes it clear that human life is precious, and that anyone who

murders a human life forfeits his own: "Anyone shedding a man's blood, by man will his

own blood be shed," it says. Moses and other prophets, as well as Jesus Christ and his

disciples, constantly stated this commandment to the nation of Israel and to the followers

of Jesus Christ. —Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13, Num. 35:30-32, Matthew 19:18, and 1

John 3:15.

Life is a divine gift that people have no right to take away. Taking it upon oneself

to take a life would be tantamount to putting oneself in the role of God. Occasionally, a

seemingly hopeless situation improves for no apparent reason. Furthermore, due to

medical science's quick advancement, today's incurable condition may be treatable

tomorrow. Certainly, more is being done all the time to alleviate pain.

All of this does not mean that a physician must continue to take exceptional,

complicated, stressful, and costly procedures to keep a patient alive when they are

suffering badly from an illness and death is only a matter of time. There's a big difference

between prolonging a patient's life and prolonging the dying process. In such instances,

gently allowing the dying process to take its course would not be a violation of God's
commandment about the sanctity of life. This principle is frequently followed by the

medical profession.

When the inevitable end of life arrives, people should be able to count on

dependable, humane, and effective care. However, too many people who are dying are

suffering unnecessarily. Euthanasia should be approved if the doctor's diagnosis could

be guaranteed infallible, if the patient's ability to make a competent request could be

guaranteed. In addition, if there were some ways of determining the degree of the

patient’s agony, then mercy killing should be permitted.

An individual is responsible to his/her life. The right to life includes the right to die.

People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible, so

they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible. (BBC,2014)

A person's socioeconomic profile should also be considered. We can't change the

fact that many people lack access to more basic rights like food, education, medication,

and other necessities of life. What about a person dying of a terrible sickness for which

there is a remedy but which he is unable to obtain due to his poverty? Should he be mercy

killed since he can't afford the treatment? What about those who are insane or

unconscious and so unable to make a personal request for a quick death?

Patients who are terminally sick or in a persistent vegetative state can take up

valuable hospital beds that could be used by individuals who do want to get better. If they

don't want to live, they shouldn't be permitted to sleep in the beds of those who do. Long-

term palliative care for terminally sick patients is a significant and ultimately unproductive

drain on medical resources. Why would you squander these valuable resources on
someone who has declared a wish to die when you could be helping someone who wants

to live?

Furthermore, these resources could be re-allocated to further research into the

specific disease that the patient is suffering from, allowing future generations to either

avoid the disease or improve the quality of care for future patients of this disease by, at

the very least, alleviating the disease's symptoms. Additionally, if the patient is an organ

donor and the organs are in good condition, it may save numerous lives, which is

ultimately priceless.

According to Socrates, living but die inside is the worst thing might happen to an

individual. Euthanasia allows us to live and die at the same time. When you're dead on

the inside, you don't feel much, all you feel is numbness and hopeless. In my own opinion,

living in a hospital bed is not truly living. Living in a body that was supported by life-

supports machine is not truly living. Living in a restricted and unfree environment is not

truly living. It is just surviving. Surviving but not living is a hellish experience filled with

torment, pain, and suffering that no one deserves.

On top of everything, I am aware that an untreated pain or emotional abandonment

are just as terrifying as an overtreated death. That’s why I believe that when suffering of

a living creature cannot be alleviated it is more ethical to end its life by killing it mercifully

than it is to stand aloof.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wallerstein, C. (1997, June 7). Philippines considers euthanasia bill. The BMJ.
https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7095/1641.10

Statista. (2021b, September 8). Number of official assisted suicides in Belgium 2002–2020.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1098051/number-of-euthanasia-instances-registered-
in-belgium/

Mercy Killing—What Do Lawyers Say? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY. (n.d.). WOL.

Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101978162

BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Pro-euthanasia arguments. (n.d.). BBC. Retrieved October 1,

2021, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml

Euthanasia & Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) around the World - Euthanasia -

ProCon.org. (n.d.). Euthanasia. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from
https://euthanasia.procon.org/euthanasia-physician-assisted-suicide-pas-around-the-
world/

Groenewoud, S. A. (2021, September 26). Euthanasia in the Netherlands: a claims data cross-
sectional study of geographical variation. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care.
https://spcare.bmj.com/content/early/2021/09/26/bmjspcare-2020-002573