British Broadcasting Corporation Home. This page sets out the arguments in favour of allowing euthanasia in certain cases. Should we accept that euthanasia happens and try to regulate it safely? Do people have the right to arrange their own deaths? Those in favour of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia can't be controlled by proper regulation , but they acknowledge that some problems will remain.
For example, it will be difficult to deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for selfish reasons or pressurise vulnerable patients into dying.
This is little different from the position with any crime. The law prohibits theft, but that doesn't stop bad people stealing things. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions.
Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this.
Allied to this is a firm belief that death is the end. Religious opponents disagree because they believe that the right to decide when a person dies belongs to God. Secular opponents argue that whatever rights we have are limited by our obligations. The decision to die by euthanasia will affect other people - our family and friends, and healthcare professionals - and we must balance the consequences for them guilt, grief, anger against our rights.
We should also take account of our obligations to society, and balance our individual right to die against any bad consequences that it might have for the community in general. These bad consequences might be practical - such as making involuntary euthanasia easier and so putting vulnerable people at risk. There is also a political and philosophical objection that says that our individual right to autonomy against the state must be balanced against the need to make the sanctity of life an important, intrinsic, abstract value of the state.
Secular philosophers put forward a number of technical arguments, mostly based on the duty to preserve life because it has value in itself, or the importance of regarding all human beings as ends rather than means. Without creating or acknowledging a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right. Those in favour of euthanasia will argue that respect for this right not to be killed is sufficient to protect against misuse of euthanasia, as any doctor who kills a patient who doesn't want to die has violated that person's rights.
Opponents of euthanasia may disagree, and argue that allowing euthanasia will greatly increase the risk of people who want to live being killed. The danger of violating the right to life is so great that we should ban euthanasia even if it means violating the right to die. This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to die.
This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act made it legal for people to take their own lives. Euthanasia opponents further point out that there is a moral difference between decriminalising something, often for practical reasons like those mentioned above, and encouraging it. They can quite reasonably argue that the purpose of the Suicide Act is not to allow euthanasia, and support this argument by pointing out that the Act makes it a crime to help someone commit suicide.
This is true, but that provision is really there to make it impossible to escape a murder charge by dressing the crime up as an assisted suicide. Opponents attack the libertarian argument specifically by claiming that there are no cases that fit the conditions above:. This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority.
But using a mechanical ventilator to keep a patient breathing is sometimes considered extraordinary treatment or care. Some ethicists believe letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or care is acceptable but withholding or withdrawing ordinary treatment or care is not.
This view is controversial. Some claim the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment is artificial, contrived, vague, or constantly changing as technology progresses. Death intended vs. If the death was intended it is wrong but if the death was anticipated it might be morally acceptable.
This reasoning relies on the moral principle called the principle of double effect. Columbia, MO Contact. All rights reserved. DMCA and other copyright information. For website information, contact the Office of Communications. Contact the MU School of Medicine.
Informational Alert Close. Learn how to schedule an appointment for vaccination or testing. Read More. It is a liberty which cannot be denied because those who are dying might want to use this liberty as a way to pursue their happiness. Terminally ill patients should be allowed to die with dignity. Choosing the right to assisted suicide would be a final exercise of autonomy for the dying.
They will not be seen as people who are waiting to die but as human beings making one final active choice in their lives. On the other side of the issue, however, people who are against assisted suicide do not believe that the terminally ill have the right to end their suffering.
They hold that it is against the Hippocratic Oath for doctors to participate in active euthanasia. The oath makes the physician promise to relieve pain and not to administer deadly medicine. This oath cannot be applied to cancer patients. For treatment, cancer patients are given chemotherapy, a form of radioactive medicine that is poisonous to the body. As a result of chemotherapy, the body suffers incredible pain, hair loss, vomiting, and other extremely unpleasant side effects.
Furthermore, to administer numerous drugs to a terminal patient and place him or her on medical equipment does not help anything except the disease itself. Respirators and high dosages of drugs cannot save the terminal patient from the victory of a disease or an illness. Still other people argue that if the right to assisted suicide is given, the doctor-patient relationship would encourage distrust. The antithesis of this claim is true.
Other opponents of assisted suicide insist that there are potential abuses that can arise from legalizing assisted suicide. They claim that terminal patients might be forced to choose assisted suicide because of their financial situation. This view is to be respected. Competent terminal patients can easily see the sorrow and grief that their families undergo while they wait for death to take their dying loved ones away.
The choice of assisted suicide would allow these terminally ill patients to end the sorrow and griefof their families as well as their own misery. If we do not address these issues openly and head-on, we will have continued uncertainty and unregulated practice of euthanasia or assisted suicide with the fear of prosecution hanging over the heads of all concerned. The goals of the medical profession should continue to remain one of saving lives but this should not be at the expense of compassion and a terminally ill individual's right to choose to end his or her life and die with dignity.
Joe Public blog Assisted dying. Why we should make euthanasia legal. Doctors will today debate the existing laws on euthanasia. Here Dr Kailash Chand explains the reasons behind his motion for the introduction of new legislation to allow terminally ill people the choice of an assisted death.
Multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy pictured here with her husband, Omar Puente has taken her legal battle to clarify the law on assisted suicide to the court of appeal. Kailash Chand. Today I will propose a motion to the British Medical Association's annual conference in Liverpool, which states: This meeting supports the introduction of legislation to allow people who are terminally ill but 'mentally competent', the choice of an assisted death.
Further, the law should not criminalise people who accompany those who make rational decisions to end their suffering The motion will seek to take the issue forward in a compassionate and fair way that I believe will serve the interests of the terminally ill and our society.
Some of the reasons that are compelling enough for us to change our laws are: Prevention of cruelty and protection of human rights To allow a terminally ill individual to end their life is the only humane, rational and compassionate choice. Regulatory Control The terminally ill are travelling abroad to countries where the right to end of life in terminal cases is recognised and is lawful.
0コメント