Caution this article contains the author’s perspective and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Bear Truth News or Winter Springs High School.
The ethics of euthanasia are controversial. According to Oxford University, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from a painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” Despite its seemingly harmless nature, numerous people have expressed concerns regarding the ethics of the procedure. Even considering this controversy, euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Spain, Germany, and some states in the U.S. Many people who are in favor of euthanasia argue that it is a person’s right to decide whether they want to live or die. However, others believe that euthanasia is inhumane because life is precious.
Euthanasia is only legal in two cases. The first is a persistent vegetative state. According to OpenEdition Books, a persistent vegetative state is when a person’s body can sustain itself, but it cannot create its thoughts or interact with the people around it. Moreover, this condition must have been going on for more than a year to be classified as persistent. An example of a vegetative persistent state is Terri Schiavo, who lost oxygen to her brain during a heart attack; despite her survival, she was in a catatonic state for more than a year. Her husband decided for her to undergo euthanasia. It is important to note that there was pushback from her parents. Similarly, Tony Bland’s parents went through a legal battle to euthanize their son after he was crushed and entered a catatonic state.
The second case of legal euthanasia involves patients who have an incurable disease or illness and are cognizant of their surroundings. These patients can decide whether or not they wish to be euthanized. Incurable diseases only increase suffering for the patient and cause mental distress as the patient realizes that their body is shutting down. However, some may argue that legalizing euthanasia would cause uncertainty on who is eligible to receive euthanasia.
Even though the criteria of who can undergo euthanasia seem unclear, it is quite concrete. Those who argue that the system can be manipulated easily do not consider that a patient’s quality of life is taken into consideration when making the final decision. The argument for “quality of life” certifies that sometimes death is more favorable than being alive. Furthermore, this case applies to people with a detrimental, incurable illness that prevents them from participating in everyday activities. However, this poses the question of what is considered a life that is worth living. If a person can not gain any sense of happiness or gratification from their life, then they are the equivalent of a ghost in a shell. Case in point, if a person has an incurable illness, they should have the right to be euthanized.
