Euthanasia pros and cons: Should people have the right to die?

The right to die debate is a contentious one. The arguments usually focus around the ethics and legalities of allowing people who are terminally ill to request and receive assisted dying. Often the biggest problems exist around who should decide if the euthanasia should be carried out, especially if the person in question is not in a fit state to make their own decision for reasons of illness or injury.

Euthanasia, or ‘Mercy killing’ as it is sometimes also known as, is legal or partially legal in some countries, such as Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. In practice, however, even in the countries where it is illegal, the law is often not enforced.

Euthanasia didn’t become a major issue until the 20^th Century when advances in medicine meant that doctors were able to keep hospital patients alive for very long periods of time, even when they had lost many of their basic bodily functions through sickness or injury.

There are essentially two forms that euthanasia can take: ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’. Active euthanasia is where somebody is effectively killed – they may, for instance, be given an overdose of morphine. Passive euthanasia is where a person dies because the medicine or treatment that is keeping them alive is withdrawn or stopped.

Religious attitudes towards the question of should people have the right to die vary. Islam and the Roman Catholic church are very much against it, whereas protestants and people who follow the Japanese Shinto religion tend to be more sympathetic to the idea of mercy killing. The Dalai Lama has stated that although Buddhism generally considers euthanasia to be wrong, there are exceptional cases and that these matters should be considered ‘on a case by case basis’.

I hope that you find my list of the euthanasia pros and cons useful. I have attempted to include in it a summary of all the main for and against arguments that people use in the right to die debate.

People should be allowed to choose – there could not be a more fundamental issue of individual liberty than the right to decide whether to live or to die.

Euthanasia can reduce or prevent human suffering by relieving people who are suffering extreme pain.

Euthanasia can also relieve suffering where someone’s quality of life has become drastically low.

Euthanasia can free up health care resources to help someone else who is severely ill.

The idea that every human life is precious and has value is undermined by euthanasia.

Most medical professionals do not want to be involved with killing patients, as it is the total opposite to what they see as their purpose, which is healing people and saving lives.

There is a danger that euthanasia could be used to control health care costs, with the patients needs and wishes taking second place.

Whatever the theory, disputes over euthanasia can often be very difficult in practice, as it is not always clear what the patient wants, or is in their interests. It is likely that more euthanasia requests would result in more extended legal battles. Take, for instance, the case of the Florida woman, Terri Schiavo, who was in a coma for years. Her husband wanted the hospital to remove her feeding tube and her parents fought a legal battle to try and stop that happening.

If voluntary euthanasia is allowed, then there is a danger of it developing into a slippery slope situation where say, sick elderly people end up having their lives terminated because selfish relatives don’t want to look after them, or out of greed for inheritance money.