Headlines
The Review Online
The right to die vs. the responsibility to keep living
14th March 2008
There will always be great debate over whether or not euthanasia should be legalised. However, over 80% of people support changing the law to allow assisted dying. So why is there such a heated debate over the topic? The reason is that there are some whose morals simply lead them to oppose euthanasia. Often people link these particular groups of people to the religious community, and there is some truth in this. However, Islam and Catholicism are the only major religions which strictly forbid euthanasia. It is true that many religions frown upon the practise, but I believe that the issue of the morality of euthanasia within the minority runs deeper than religion.
The opponents of euthanasia often link the practise to murder, which is why they want to encourage debate with those who are pro-assisted death. Although arguing that assisted deaths constitutes in some way as pre-mediated killing, conversely it could be argued that the pro-life camp is in itself morally unjustified because it abandons all sense of democracy and liberty of the individual. In my opinion it seems to attempt to impose a perhaps warped sense of morality upon the supporters of euthanasia.
A law permitting euthanasia would NOT force its opponents to use it. The issue, I believe, is fundamentally an issue of freedom for the individual. How can it be right that a minority should be allowed to dictate to the vast majority how they must act in times of desperate and often debasing struggle? I would presume that the supporters of euthanasia have no intention of dictating people’s lives. They merely promote the freedom of the individual to choice and a right to die with dignity.
Some would argue that a law legalising euthanasia would lead to abuse of the system. However, if a law were put into place it would be strictly regulated to make the chances of misuse minimal. Furthermore, if one takes this view that abuse of a system should mean that the system should not be allowed at all, then surely one would believe that the number of legal systems in the UK would have to be severely reduced. The abuse of the driving system, for instance, causes many unwanted deaths and personal tragedies. So should driving a vehicle be banned totally without any exceptions? I doubt many opponents of euthanasia, or anyone for that matter, would agree with this. It is for this reason that I believe that misuse of the system is not a valid argument against euthanasia.
The other major argument against euthanasia is that it would place an obligation upon the ill and elderly to end their lives to lessen the burden they place on their families. However, if euthanasia were to be legalised there would be tight restrictions upon its use. Euthanasia, if legal, would obviously be strictly voluntary, either through verbal consent of the patient or living will. Coupled with this, at least two doctors would have to consent to the death, recognising that the patient is terminally ill and if made to live on, any quality of life the patient once had would be lost. I think that as the risk of people being forced into euthanasia would be slight, it is worth legalising the procedure so that hundreds of people with genuine pain and suffering could finally be allowed to rest in peace.
To conclude, I believe that if a patient is refused the right to a painless death when suffering is inevitable, then the immorality lies with he who refuses that right, rather than he who accepts it. After all, legalising euthanasia would not by any stretch of the imagination make it compulsory. It would rather make the option of putting an end to needless suffering available to those who desire it, and leave those opposed to it with the right to refuse and live on.
Callum Harries