A Dignified Death: Do People Have the Right?

...

However, on the opposite side of that spectrum, there are those that believe physicians and family members would choose euthanasia before seeking out hospice and other end-of-life options. When a person reaches the stage of illness or age where palliative care becomes a viable option, their physician or family member must realize the time, energy and expense that will come with keeping their loved one alive and comfortable. It will not be easy for anyone, but by agreeing to hospice, they are committing themselves to that monumental effort. If and when euthanasia becomes a widespread practice, there would be a real incentive to do it. It would be much easier to let a loved one slip away rather than dedicating so much of oneself to a dying family member, or committing to practices that insurance would not pay for. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, palliative care was not properly addressed until the late 1990s and did not see real advancement until the last several years, prompting critics to argue that if there had been a proper system in place previously, there might not have been so many patients seeking physician-assisted suicide.

One of the strongest arguments for euthanasia is the quality of life many patients experience when they finally seek out a physician. Euthanasia literally means “good death” or “to die well” – a death that is peaceful and humane. If a cancer patient has gone through multiple aggressive rounds of chemotherapy, and their cancer has a high chance of remission, then what kind of quality of life do they have to look forward to? One of the main principles of the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath is to ‘do no harm’, but by withholding active practices of euthanasia, one could argue that the doctor is causing undue harm and suffering to their patient, particularly if there is little to no hope of recovery. But pain is not always the only issue when it comes to end-of-life care. Immobility, breathlessness and incontinence are just a few of the embarrassing symptoms one can experience when diagnosed with a terminal illness. If a person is denied something that is the “norm”, something even as simple as going unassisted to the restroom or breathing on their own, without the probability of ever regaining it, one can argue that their quality of life is greatly diminished. The ‘death with dignity’ argument is also one of control. When faced with the prospect of a slow, painful death, plus the degenerative physical conditions that rob many patients of the mobility and quality of life they are used to, they feel out of control. By giving them the option to end their own life, humanely and when they choose, they are given some sense of control back, perhaps the only control they have left.

However, quality of life means different things to different people. Simply because one person does not want to live that way – immobile and bound to a bed, for example – does not mean another person would find that way of life unpleasant. When a person argues that someone no longer has ‘quality of life’, they are arguing that life is only valuable as long as it obtains something with quality, and when that ceases to exist, then life’s usefulness has run its course. But that view is entirely subjective, and changes depending on what a person regards as being valuable. If human lives were extrinsically valuable – meaning the worth of something is dependent on external values – than slavery would still be legal, as a slave’s value would be measured by how well they worked and they would not experience suffering. But the United States believe that human lives have intrinsic value, as stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each person is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .” Life remains valuable even after such basic functions as breathing and moving unassisted become limited, and usefulness is not derived from a person’s ability to walk, talk, or eat.

Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic with strong arguments on both sides, and both sides feel that they are in the right. Each position has strong points, but there is a middle ground. Assisted suicide is not for everyone, but it should not be denied to those who actively seek it out. Terminal illness can rob a person of their dignity, and dying will not always be painless and easy. Places where physician-assisted suicide already exists shows that it is possible for euthanasia to be legal without the system being abused, and that end-of-life care is often exhausted before a patient seeks out death.

Works Cited

Death with Dignity Act. State of Oregon: Oregon Health Authority. Web. 22 Feb. 2016

Kimsma, Gerrit. Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case of Palliative Care & Patient Choice. 2004. Online.

Marker, Rita L. Background about Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Patients Right Council. 2013. Web. 23 Feb. 2016

Gordijn,