A Distorted Reality.

The debating of the issue of euthanasia brings with it many ethical, moral and possibly even religious factors which need to be accounted for. Over the course of this essay, I aim to explore some of these ideas and come to a reasoned conclusion at to whether it is in real terms ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ as a course of action in cases of debilitating illness.

Some feel that euthanasia is morally wrong, and the Argument of Nature is one argument used by non-supporters of euthanasia to explain their belief. It states that every human being has a natural inclination to continue living and that euthanasia does is damaging to the natural goal of survival. The core point of this argument is that euthanasia is wrong because it is unnatural – this tends to be the argument made by the religious, with the slight caveat that it is God who defines the natural order of things, and that euthanasia is an affront to his/hers/its decisions.

A more semantic argument would be that euthanasia could only be moral if voluntary, and that the competence required for the decision of a voluntary would be a difficult quantity to measure: what makes one competent? What is to say that someone’s judgement is not impaired in order to make a voluntary decision null? The legality of euthanasia would also cast various aspersions upon members of the medical profession, with them no longer having to keep their patients alive with expensive care: it may then be the case that the interests of the patient are not placed first, but rather the finances of their hospital.

There is also a large camp with reasons to permit the idea of voluntary euthanasia: the choice of one to end one’s life should be an option for the individual to make as an ultimate choice; and it can be argued that complete freedom of life (and thus death) is protected under the UN Human Rights agreements. If someone is suffering from a crippling terminal illness, it could be argued that death would provide a better quality of life for them, as much of a contradiction in terms that may sound – no life at all may be better in the eyes of some than a life of suffering.

Possibly more controversial arguments for euthanasia could involve the fact that the deaths of terminal patients would lighten the financial and spatial load upon hospitals for those would have hope of a cure, and thus increase quality of care across the board.

In conclusion, I believe the individual liberties of patients should be put before any religious or pseudo-moral arguments in cases where a long, painful death could be involved in a long-term terminal illness; and even those with people just wishing to die: why subject them to the degrading methods so commonly used for suicide when a medical aide would allow them to do it properly and without the possibly degrading and embarrassing potential for failure?