Euthanasia

“Think of all those ages through which men have had the courage to die, and then remember that we have actually fallen to talking about having the courage to live.”
― G.K. Chesterton, George Bernard Shaw

O, let him pass. He hates him
That would upon the rack of this tough world
Stretch him out longer.

Shakespeare

Nothing sparks more flames than discussions on life and death and perhaps the crux in this imperfectly weighing boat is our understanding of the nature and meaning life. This debate should include retrospect (looking at the cultures, traditions and norms that we held), the present (the extent to which they have changed and our willingness to re-draw the lines) and the future (the social, economic and normative effects.)

The media, the purveyor of all things newsworthy (arguable) have for a long time portrayed euthanasia as an individual decision with effects on the individual only but matters of this magnitude may apart from being prone to abuse, have an effect on our values and beliefs, the tender strands that hold the fabric of our society together. All religions are pro-life and batting for the other team are pro-life-till-you-decide-you-don’t want-to live-anymore. Let’s look at this debate and maybe you’ll find out where you lie.

Pro-euthanasia parties argue that human beings are accorded autonomy and bodily integrity as seen in previous court rulings in favour of abortion, marriage and family relationships. They argue that a mentally competent person should be given the right to end their life to put an end to the suffering they’re already going through and can be seen as a natural extension of the law that allows one to refuse/terminate potentially life-saving treatment as there is no significant difference between the two. The religious argument against that is that the laws have continued to rule against assisted suicide time and time again and that one’s right to refuse treatment is different from physician-aided-death?

The European Declaration of human rights assures us of the right not to be forced to suffer and some argue that we should be accorded the right to chose not to suffer any more and to end our lives just as fervently as the action taken against one who ends another’s life without their consent. The religious argument against this argue against the notion that laws these law are government mandated suffering and Rita Marker an Executive Director at the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide asks whether the rules against selling expired food would against the same standards be considered a law that allowed starvation. They argue that laws against euthanasia are for the protection of people against unscrupulous doctors and others and have never been there to support suffering.

Euthanasia might be the first step in a slippery slope that we’’ slowly descend into. Euthanasia when legalized started with strict legislation but slowly the noose has been loosened and now in some countries like Netherlands, it’s allowed for broad socio-economic problems and they’re planning to expand its scope to include loneliness and poverty.  Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients by advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is voluntary euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent?" The other side argues that the slippery slope argument is circumstantial and just as good as the cults which prophesy the end of the world then come out afterwards and realize that the moon didn’t turn red after all. They argue that slippery slope arguments are speculative with no facts to back it up.

“I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”  This is an excerpt from the original Hippocratic Oath used to swear in doctors all over the world. The oath recognizes the dignity and mystery of human life in itself and this guides the physician’s restraint as opposed to the patient’s wants or his compassion or opinion. The doctor handing the patient poison on his request goes against that oath that is used as a moral compass for the doctors.  “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”  That’s an excerpt from the modern version of the same oath. Supporters argue that “do no harm” should be interpreted and that if prolonging the suffering on an ailing person can be justified as doing no harm. They also argue that the modernization of the Hippocratic Oath, recognition not being binding and has not been taken on by some institutions, has recognized the changes in our attitudes and has slowly changed. The revised versions have broader clauses which are subject to interpretation.

In a utilitarian society focused on public spending and the cost of healthcare, some argue that pragmatism in resource management would favour euthanasia over the spending on palliative care. The cost of euthanasia medication is far much cheaper than the caring for the terminally ill so the argument is made that we’d rather be spending money on the people who can easily be treated as opposed to (excuse the callousness) those who will surely die with or without medical intervention. Critics argue that healthcare spending has never been based on a zero sum (a situation where a loss on one side, is a gain for the other side) model. It’s also a pretty morally demanding issue to determine who deserves treatment and who doesn’t. Who would have the authority to determine a person’s worth? Is a terminally ill person worth less that a person with a curable disease?

The strongest standing religious argument is that life is the ultimate gift from God. We have stewardship but not total dominion over our life. This is represented in the fact that we strive to take care of our bodies and health by all means possible through what we eat, our lifestyles and by seeking medical intervention. Universalists however argue that they recognize the value of human life and the intrinsic dignity that comes with it. They believe it as an affront to human dignity to extend the life of a person longer than they deem necessary if they suffer from great mental or physical disadvantage and there is no cure or improvement in the foreseeable future.

The burden of proof has in the past decade moved from those supporting euthanasia to those opposing it. The challenge of producing tangible evidence is also stacked against the euthanasia opponents. Proponents can use arguments based on inherent right to dignity, failure of palliative care to offer substantial relief, the argument that doctors are secretly doing it anyway and they can get polls and surveys to support their point. The arguments against euthanasia can be seen to be circumstantial without factual backing and they are on the back foot on this one. The recognition of this is paramount to be able to make a balanced choice on the way forward.

The debate rages on and may birth a deeper, perhaps more revealing debate; which of the two world views of great dissimilitude will shape our cultural and normative paradigms as we advance in the 21^st Century. Our cognition, rationale and logic are seen as the distinguishable human attributes and the value of arguments is based on them but as long as you believe it, you can argue for it and make it the new gospel; your gospel, at least . In essence there is nothing such as a neutral argument. Our selves are laced with fragments of toys we played with when we were five and the concert we never went to when we were twenty. Whichever way your sway is held, be sure to look the other way for just but a while so see which ship will land find.