Against Euthanasia Essay Example

dying individuals' bedside care. Moreover, they advocate proactive structures allowing people to choose how they want to die. The right-to-die principle must protect mentally competent individuals who seek help in ending their lives without state intervention.

While euthanasia is illegal in many places, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, and certain US states like Oregon and Texas, aiding a death can result in criminal charges. However, if someone attempts suicide, it is legally required for others to intervene. Suicide itself is not considered a crime; instead, the jurisdiction emphasizes compassion over punishment for those who attempt it. In England, legal prohibitions are seen as unlikely to deter desperate individuals from attempting suicide. Despite outlawing suicide and euthanasia, court precedents have established that competent adult patients have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment even if it leads ultimately to their death. This has been demonstrated in cases such as Cruzan v Director of Missouri Department of Health (US) and B v An NHS Hospital Trust (England/Wales). As such, actively assisting another's death is viewed as morally wrong while indirectly allowing them to die due to their refusal of treatment is deemed acceptable - despite this contradicting the obligation to intervene in cases of attempted suicide.

Euthanasists appeal to society's moral compass by using compassion as their main argument. They challenge the idea of denying individuals a dignified and painless death when they request it, especially those who are in extreme pain and facing inevitable death. The Rights of Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT) received widespread support through ads portraying euthanasia as a compassionate act for those suffering at the brink of death. However, research findings suggest that patients' primary

reason for choosing euthanasia is the loss of dignity rather than intolerable pain, which contradicts the notion of patients experiencing unbearable pain.

The statistics demonstrate that the majority of terminally ill patients, 95%, are able to overcome their pain. The remaining 5% may experience some relief. A 1992 Remme link report found that less than 5% of patients seek euthanasia due to unbearable pain. Research indicates that loss of independence and loneliness are the primary reasons for requesting end-of-life measures. According to recent data from Oregon in the year 2000, these were cited by 93% of those who sought euthanasia. In Mrs. Pretty's case against British euthanasia law under the Human Rights Act, she claimed her death would lack dignity and respect. Although her petition did not grant her request, it highlighted a discrepancy between personal values and legal systems.

Although some argue in favor of euthanasia, it goes against social norms and is not a preferred method for treating suffering. In situations where individuals are facing extreme challenges, death is not seen as an acceptable solution. Instead, significant public resources are dedicated to exploring all other options before resorting to killing. Despite being illegal in Australia, euthanasia still exists within the state and through death tourism. While assisted suicide remains illegal throughout the country, certain jurisdictions have enacted legislation allowing it under strict conditions.

The Re Z (local authority: duty) case highlights Switzerland's unique stance on non-residents being able to use its assisted suicide facilities. This was exemplified when Mrs. Z was granted permission to travel there for euthanasia and underwent a psychological evaluation before her assisted death took place in a controlled environment. In comparison, the

Pretty v UK case had different circumstances. It is worth noting that an Australian doctor survey conducted by Khuse, Singer, Baume, Clark and Rickard during July 1996 revealed interesting findings and was published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1997.

In Australia, where euthanasia is not legal, voluntary euthanasia accounted for 1.8% of all deaths while physician-assisted suicide was only at 0.1%. Meanwhile, non-voluntary euthanasia constituted 3.5% of deaths in the country when compared to the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal.

According to Douglas et al., there has been an increase in both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. In the Netherlands, a study conducted by PJ van der Maas in 1990 found that 1.7% of all deaths were caused by voluntary euthanasia and 0.2% were due to physician-assisted suicide.

Despite its illegality in Australia, a study found that there were 20,000 instances of voluntary euthanasia resulting in death and 1,000 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia accounting for 0.8% of all deaths. This suggests that some patients are intentionally being terminated without consent, which opponents argue could result in further immoral practices if legalized. The main arguments against euthanasia revolve around human rights violations and potential unintended negative outcomes. Advocates who support the "sanctity of life" believe that life should be preserved as it is considered valuable.

The fundamental value of safeguarding the right to life is crucial and recognized in various international agreements, including Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In fact, the right to life is considered as the most important human entitlement. The UK has incorporated ECHR into its law through

the Human Rights Act 1998, which mandates that legal measures must guarantee that every individual's right to life is upheld.

Although the right to life is a fundamental principle, there are certain circumstances in which it may be surrendered. Exceptions based on religion and morality apply to situations such as war, martyrdom, and capital punishment. In cases of religious martyrdom, individuals may relinquish their right to life in order to uphold their beliefs and avoid blasphemy or submission to a tyrant. This aligns with norms in religious societies where sacrificing one's life for faith is more acceptable than suicide because it demonstrates devotion to the faith and solidarity with fellow believers. Similarly, the right to life does not preclude sending soldiers into harm's way during wartime since they serve a noble cause and die honorably representing their country.

Despite the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights only allowing for capital punishment in severe non-homicidal cases, some countries still use it for certain crimes. This indicates a lack of universal right to life. While some individuals have the autonomy to choose their own deaths, this is not equivalent to those seeking euthanasia for various reasons. Opponents of euthanasia argue that it can result in unethical practices and diminish the significance of death. Research conducted in both the Netherlands (where euthanasia is legal) and Australia suggests that this practice increases doctors' control over patients' lives rather than enhancing patient autonomy.

Despite concerns that legalizing euthanasia leads to involuntary euthanasia, research suggests that increasing its legality does not significantly increase such instances. Margaret Otlowski notes that inducing death without explicit consent is more prevalent in Australia than in the Netherlands,

where active voluntary euthanasia is permitted and regulated. The issue of euthanasia raises ethical questions about society's moral positions. Advocates argue for the right to die with dignity and legitimizing a common practice, while opponents contend it challenges the right to life, devalues life, and opens doors to immoral practices.

The government has to deal with conflicts between individual rights and community interests, while also considering personal moral beliefs and legal obligations.