Euthanasia, which is performed to relieve the suffering of terminally ill patients, is controversial because of its potential to undermine the dignity of life. Artificially ending a life may not be the best solution to alleviate suffering, which is why medical advances and therapeutic support are needed.
Imagine this situation: a family member of yours is terminally ill, in tremendous pain every day, and there is no hope of a cure with current medical technology. The family is left wondering if it makes sense to keep him alive. They are torn between keeping him in constant pain or helping him end his life comfortably. In this moment, we are faced with a deep ethical dilemma about life, dignity, and the right of a human being to decide when to die. Euthanasia, or the ending of a life suffering from a terminal illness, has been at the center of debates around the world for decades.
While euthanasia is a way to end suffering, it is also the artificial termination of human life. The term ‘euthanasia’ comes from the Greek word ‘ευθανασία’, which means a beautiful death. Euthanasia is the termination of life to relieve suffering in situations where further treatment is deemed futile, such as in the case of a terminal illness, and is also commonly known as dignity in dying.
Euthanasia can be categorized into different types depending on whether the patient consents and how it is carried out. There are two types of euthanasia: voluntary euthanasia, which occurs when the patient consents to their death, and involuntary euthanasia, which occurs without the patient’s consent. Voluntary euthanasia is only performed when the patient has made the decision on their own, and is more ethically acceptable because it respects the patient’s wishes. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is when a patient is incapacitated and someone else decides to end their life, and is not allowed in many countries due to ethical concerns.
Euthanasia is also divided into active and passive euthanasia, depending on how the death is brought about. Active euthanasia involves directly killing the patient by injecting a lethal substance or poison. This is the most controversial option in the euthanasia debate and is only legally allowed in a few countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, for example, doctors can perform active euthanasia if the patient is in extreme pain and has given clear consent to die. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involves withdrawing common life-prolonging treatments or devices to allow the patient to die naturally. This approach is less controversial because it can reduce patient suffering, but it’s still a difficult choice for medical ethics and families.
The legalization of euthanasia has been debated for a long time, and while some countries have legalized voluntary euthanasia, it is still hotly debated for and against. Those in favor of euthanasia argue that it is a way to provide a peaceful death for patients in extreme pain, and that it respects human dignity. I, on the other hand, am against legalizing euthanasia. Euthanasia is an act of disrespect for human life, and artificially ending a life in the name of reducing suffering is ultimately a disregard for the value of life.
First, euthanasia risks leading to an attitude that treats life as a commodity and overlooks its preciousness. Humans are given the opportunity to live from birth, and death is a natural process that cannot be artificially determined. Humans do not have the right to intentionally take human life. Even if a patient is in extreme pain, it is basic human ethics and the role of medicine to try to alleviate that pain as much as medically possible. In fact, doctors are constantly developing different ways to alleviate suffering, and argue that these treatments can be a more humane solution than euthanasia. Euthanasia is just the easiest way to end a human life quickly, and relying on it can lead to a trivialization of human life.
On the other hand, despite the claimed voluntariness of euthanasia, the reality is that patients are emotionally and psychologically vulnerable. They can easily make pessimistic choices due to financial burdens and psychological pressures, and they may voluntarily choose euthanasia because they feel they are a burden to their families. However, in reality, patients do not truly want to die, but rather crave support and comfort from their loved ones. If family members show that they understand the patient’s suffering and are committed to restoring their health, the patient will regain hope for life and think less about death. It is therefore important for those around them to provide support and comfort to help the patient find meaning and purpose in life again.
Ending a patient’s life is not the only solution. A doctor’s job is to “kill” the pain, not kill the person. Suggesting euthanasia ignores the advances in medical technology and medical achievements. Giving patients the right to die also gives doctors the right to decide when they die. If the practice of removing life-prolonging devices or refusing to care for patients increases, it will be another example of disregard for life. Modern medicine is constantly advancing, and this has led to new treatments for diseases that were once thought to be incurable. For example, 20 years ago, patients with brain hemorrhages had little chance of recovery if they became critically ill, but now, thanks to advances in medical devices and surgical techniques, there are many reports of recovery. So even if a disease is difficult to treat today, there is a good chance that a solution will be found in the future. It is not death that will end suffering, but proper treatment and patient support.
Currently, only a handful of countries have legalized voluntary euthanasia, including the United States, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. However, if euthanasia were to be legalized in more countries, many ethical issues would arise. For example, it is possible that some doctors will choose to reduce costs rather than the effectiveness of treatment rather than alleviate patient suffering. This could lead to irresponsible euthanasia practices, where lives are ended without the patient’s consent and based solely on the family’s decision. The value of human life will be downplayed and irresponsibly handled through euthanasia.
Therefore, we should be wary of legalizing euthanasia and give suffering patients a chance to live. Instead of euthanasia, we should explore various treatments to relieve patients’ suffering and help them live a meaningful life with their families in their remaining time. Life is dignified in its own right, and artificially ending it is a taboo that should not be challenged by humans.
