Debate for Australia euthanasia - Essay Example

Debate for Australia Euthanasia Introduction The debate on euthanasia is intense all over the world. There are a couple of countries that have legalized euthanasia. Among those that have not is Australia. Despite concerted efforts within Australia to have Euthanasia legalized, the status quo is still maintained. There was a very short period of time when euthanasia was legalized in the Northern Territory of Australia. This was when the Rights of Terminally Ill Act (1995) was enforced in 1996. This act legalized euthanasia in the Northern Territory (Parliament of Australia, 2013). This act allowed terminally ill patients to request for euthanasia from their physicians as long as they were mature (18 years and above) and of sound mind. Unfortunately or fortunately, the Act had a short life span as it was overruled in 1997 by the Federal Government. The federal government enacted the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 which made the Right of Terminally Ill Act (1995) void (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010; Walsh et al., 2009; White & Willmott, 2012). The Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 made it illegal for states in Australia to enact any laws that permit euthanasia (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). Despite this blanket law by the Federal Government forbidding state governments from enacting laws that will legalize euthanasia, there are concerted efforts to ensure that euthanasia is legalized. These efforts however have desperately failed because the indication of the majority is that euthanasia should not be legalized (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). It is with this background that this paper tries to unravel the debate behind legalization of euthanasia in Australia. The fervent views for legalization of euthanasia are compared with those against legalization of euthanasia in reference to Australia. Through this paper, it will be possible to show why the majority have prevailed to have euthanasia remain illegal but also the logic and strength of those who argue for the legalization of the same will be shown. The Debate The Sanctity of life verses Beneficence It has been argued that legalization of euthanasia will lead to disrespect for human life. This has often been based on religious and secular beliefs. The Christian view is that life is given by God and only he is responsible for taking it away (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). The same view is held by the Islamic religion (Bulow et al., 2008). Therefore, the opponents view legalization of euthanasia as being immoral and against God’s commandment since it does not sanctify life. However, the proponents have responded by arguing that legalizing euthanasia will actually uphold human dignity. They have argued that no person should be allowed to undergo torture from terminal illness. Such continuous pain, they have pointed out, which medicine has no control over degrades human dignity and defeats the very logic for continuing to live. Therefore, euthanasia will do more good than harm (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). In addition, they have also said that the society is built on fundamental values of compassion and mercy. The society should therefore rise to the occasion and help the terminally ill from suffering unbearably without any help (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). Euthanasia as murder versus right-based arguments The opponents have viewed legalization of euthanasia has a commission to commit murder. They have argued that any action intended to take away another person’s life is inherently wrong and should never be allowed even if the victim has given the consent (Somerville, 2003). Euthanasia has therefore been viewed has killing of other human beings and fervently opposed on those grounds. On the other hand, the proponents have made an argument against this view by pointing out to the principles of autonomy and self-determination. The argument has been that a patient has a right to his or her life and therefore can determine on how he or she should die (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010; Kerridge, Lowe & Stewart, 2009). The autonomy principle allows a patient of sound mind to make any decision pertaining to his or her life as long as such a decision does nobody any harm (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). Along this line, it is argued that a patient has a right to determine when he or she no longer wants to live. It is further argued that, due to the principle of autonomy, a patient has a right to his or her own decisions and equally a right to a dignified death (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). In general, the proponents argue that by patients being denied the right to euthanasia, the society is actually tramping upon their (patients’) rights and forcing decisions on them (patients) which they (patients) do not necessarily ascribe to. In other word, the insistence on the sustenance of the status quo in reference to legalization of euthanasia is a continued violation of patients’ rights and thus those of human rights. How have the opponents responded to these accusations of violating human rights specifically the principles of autonomy? The proponents have come out strongly and fiercely claiming that actually allowing euthanasia is an abuse of autonomy and human rights contrary to what the proponents have said. The opponents have argued that the principle of autonomy advocates for conditions that favor autonomy (Goldman & Schafer, 2008). Any attempt to suppress any condition that supports autonomy is therefore a violation of the principle of autonomy. Legalizing euthanasia means advocating for ending lives and unfortunately once a person’s life is no more, his or her autonomy ceases to exist. This therefore means the decision to allow euthanasia actually undermines the principle of autonomy. It has further been argued that most terminally ill patients are usually not of sound minds, and therefore the decisions they make are mostly not autonomous (Patterson & George, 2005). Still it has further been argued that euthanasia contravenes the right to life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that every person without any exception has a right to life. This right to life does not in any way tolerate the concepts or views of right to death (Goldman & Schafer, 2008). Actually, the right to life and the right to death (which however does not exist) are antagonistic. The opponents dismiss claims that terminally ill patients should be allowed to have a right to death as this will make suicide justifiable in some cases (Sommerville, 2003). Palliative care Opponents of legalization of euthanasia have argued that with proper palliative care, the pain and suffering that terminally ill patients undergo can be greatly relieved (Goldman & Schafer, 2008). It has been shown that when terminally ill patients have been subjected to good palliative care, they end up not sustaining their requests for euthanasia (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). This indicates that with proper care, the pain can be relieved to bearable levels thus the need not to legalize euthanasia. The rights of vulnerable patients It has also been argued that legalizing euthanasia will give a rise to situations that undermine the rights of terminally ill patients (George, Finlay & Jeffrey, 2005; Leipoldt, 2013). It has been argued that one way this may happen is when patients receive costly treatments which may be draining the resources of family members. With the option of euthanasia being available, such patients may be coerced into accepting euthanasia against their wishes. The principle of medical care Medical care is meant to help people live health lives and for a longer time. The opponents have argued that allowing euthanasia will be putting physicians in positions which contradict the objectives of their practice. The medical profession will be tarnished as it would not be purely participating in prolonging life but also in cutting it short. It has further been argued that, euthanasia will further break the trust between a physician and a patient. Conclusion As already discussed above, the debate on whether to legalize or not legalize euthanasia is complicated. Many issues are raised which are worth consideration. It is hard to make the best decision on which side is right or wrong because of the different perspectives involved. Nevertheless, I believe that every person has a right to life. The fact that terminally ill patients often are confronted with suffering and pain cannot be denied, however as Goldman and Schafer (2008) have argued, with proper palliative care it is possible for the pain to be relieved. It is correct to logically assume that terminally ill patients may demand euthanasia because of the pain they undergo. Therefore, ensuring that this pain is reduced will go a long way to avoiding the demands for euthanasia. Another argument which may come up is the costs involved. Terminally ill patients often are on costly treatment programs. The patient may feel uncomfortable draining family resources while he or she knows he or she has a short life left and consequently may decide to request for euthanasia to save on the family resources for those left behind. This can be especially the case when the patient is a breadwinner. A suggestion to settle all this is that the government should enact a law which gives all the terminally ill patients right to the best treatment within Australia and the costs accumulated thereof be footed by the government. In this manner, there will be no need to legalize euthanasia and terminally ill patients will access the best palliative care and thus their lives will be prolonged. In this manner therefore, the right to life would have been upheld. References Bartels, L & Otlowski, M. (2010). A right to die? Euthanasia and the law in Australia. Journal Law Med 17(4): 532-55. Bulow, HH., Sprung, CL., Reinhart, K., Prayag, S., Du, B & Armaganidis, A. (2008). The world’s major religions’ points of view on end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 34(3): 423-30. George, R J., Finlay, IG & Jeffrey, D. (2005). Legalized euthanasia will violate the rights of vulnerable patients. BMJ. 331(7518): 684-5. Goldman, L & Schafer, A. (2008). Goldman’s Cecil Medicine. 23rd ed. New York, NY: Saunders. Kerridge, I., Lowe, M & Stewart, C. (2009). Ethics and law for the health professions. 3rd ed. Australia, New South Wales: Federation Press. Leipoldt, E. (2013). Euthanasia in Australia: Raising a disability voice. Australian Policy Online. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/commentary/euthanasia-australia-raising-disability-voice Norval, D & Gwyther, E. (2003). Ethical decisions in end-of-life care. CME 21(5): 267-72. Parliament of Australia. (2013). Euthanasia – the Australian Law in a n International Context. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp4 Patterson, R & George, K. (2005). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: A liberal approach versus the traditional moral view. Journal of Law Med. 12(4): 494-510. Somerville, MA. (2003). “Death talk”: debating euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Australia. Med Journal of Austria 178(4): 171-4. Walsh, D., Caraceni, A., Fainsinger, R., Foley, K., Glare, P., & Goh, C. (2009). Palliative Medicine: Expert Consult Premium Edition. New York, NY: Elservier Science Division. White, B & Willmott, L. (2012). How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.australia21.org.au/publications/press_releases/12/Nov/03a4e7f1024affcd9f2f8ee45d3b381f.pdf Read More