Euthanasia is a sensitive issue surrounding human life and dignity, and debate continues to rage over the ethical considerations of relieving patient suffering and concerns about disregard for life. In particular, active euthanasia, as practiced at the Dignitas Hospital in Switzerland, has stirred up legal and social controversy, prompting deep reflection on the nature of life and its social value.
Euthanasia is the artificial hastening of death to relieve the suffering of a patient suffering from a terminal illness. As a sensitive issue involving human life, it has been controversial, and the Severance Death with Dignity case in 2009 has made euthanasia a hot topic in Korea. Recently, Dignitas Hospital has become known for its euthanasia program. Dignitas Hospital is a hospital that practices ‘active and voluntary euthanasia’. The terms “active” and “voluntary” may be a bit confusing. There are different forms of euthanasia, and it’s important to distinguish between them, so before we talk about Dignitas Hospital, we’ll explain the types of euthanasia.
Euthanasia can be divided into two main categories based on the method of death. There are two main types of euthanasia: active euthanasia, which directly causes death by using drugs or other means, and passive euthanasia, which hastens death naturally by withdrawing life-prolonging devices such as ventilators or CPR. There are also different types of euthanasia based on whether the patient consents or not. Voluntary euthanasia is performed when a patient freely agrees to die without being coerced by anyone. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is performed when the patient is unable to make a choice about life and death.
Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic around the world. Recently, public opinion in Korea has been favorable towards passive and voluntary euthanasia. In one survey, 70% of respondents in Korea said they were in favor of passive euthanasia, and in France and New Zealand, 70-80% of people were in favor of passive euthanasia. This is due to the growing consensus that the right to self-determination over death should be respected and that the right to happiness of patients and their caregivers should not be sacrificed for futile life-sustaining treatments. However, active euthanasia, which involves taking away the rest of a person’s life, and involuntary euthanasia, which can be forced upon someone else, are still banned in many countries. This is due to the potential for medical error, the potential for abuse of good intentions, and the potential to reinforce a culture of disregard for life.
Passive euthanasia, or dignity with dignity, is a sharply divided issue between proponents and opponents. Proponents argue that individuals have the right to their own body, life, and death, and that euthanasia is different from murder because it involves the right to choose one’s own death. They believe that ending futile life-sustaining treatments and allowing a person to die naturally avoids ethical problems, reduces the financial burden on patients and their caregivers, and guarantees the right to happiness. Opponents argue against it from a principled perspective of the dignity of human life and the potential for misdiagnosis, abuse, and exploitation. They are also concerned that if the discussion of end-of-life or futile withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment becomes widespread, there is a risk of creating a social atmosphere where external factors, such as economic conditions, can intervene and push patients toward death.
It is difficult to take a stand on the issue of euthanasia, as the goal of happiness and the absolute value of life cannot be prioritized. However, it is possible to express strong opposition to active euthanasia. This is because it involves the forcible deprivation of a person’s remaining life, which can be considered a form of murder. Active euthanasia is not free from ethical issues because it’s not a natural death, but an artificial one. Voluntary active euthanasia is similar to suicide, and involuntary active euthanasia is similar to murder, both of which are ethically and socially unacceptable.
This is why the recent story about the Dignitas Hospital in Switzerland is so shocking. Dignitas Hospital is a specialist assisted suicide hospital in Switzerland that was founded to help terminally ill and dying patients end their lives with dignity. Dignitas comes from the Latin word “dignity,” which means “dignity,” and is intended to help people who are dying end their lives with dignity. The hospital prescribes lethal doses of poison to patients who want to end their lives, a practice known as “assisted suicide. In effect, it’s active euthanasia with medical intervention, and it’s legal. The legal basis for euthanasia, according to the hospital’s website, is Article 115 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which reads
“If a suicide is attempted or successful, a person who, with selfish motives, causes or assists another person to commit suicide shall be punished by imprisonment for up to five years.”
The hospital argues that they are not legally at fault because they are assisting suicide without a selfish motive. The number of people choosing euthanasia at Dignitas Hospital increases every year, and in 2011, 144 people were euthanized there, bringing the total number to more than 1,000. To be eligible for euthanasia, patients must have a doctor’s certificate stating that they are incurable, have the capacity to make their own death decisions, and pay an initiation fee and annual dues to the hospital.
At Dignitas Hospital, a doctor’s certification that a patient’s condition is incurable is all that’s needed for legalized suicide. It’s the most radical form of euthanasia, and it’s highly controversial around the world because it’s open to foreigners. It’s understandable that patients facing death are in physical pain and desperation. However, active euthanasia is the act of giving up the rest of your life. From an existentialist perspective, death is inevitable and should be humbly accepted. If pointless life support is against the nature of death, it is even more contradictory to give up the rest of one’s life through active euthanasia at Dignitas Hospital. Given the value of life, this is not only a personal issue, but also a serious social one. For example, the ability to give up the rest of one’s life at one’s own choice may encourage a culture of disregard for life, and the presence of many socially successful individuals at Dignitas Hospital suggests the potential for the Werther effect, or the possibility of sympathetic suicide. There is also a risk of misdiagnosis and abuse of the system, such as suicide attempts with forged doctor’s reports.
No matter how painful it is, the value of life is incomparable. On a personal level, we need to reflect on the value of life and understand the tragic consequences of giving it up. In extreme pain, it can be difficult to make good decisions, so it’s important to create an environment that supports this. With medical help to alleviate physical and mental pain, and a social environment that allows people to end their lives in a beautifully organized way that is not suicidal, no one will feel compelled to take their fear of death to the extreme.
There’s a saying that goes, “Even if you’re rolling in dog shit, it’s better to be alive. This means that no matter how hard life is, it is a happiness that is incomparable to death and is worth preserving. People who choose euthanasia advocate for euthanasia in direct opposition to this proverb, claiming the right to die. Life has meaning in itself, and we only live once.
