Euthanasia; The Freedom of Choice

Many see death as a sad end to the beauty of life. But, to those who suffer from terminal illness, euthanasia can be a beautiful end to a sad, painful life. It is common belief that a person lives until they die, but in Belgium, they are courageously giving people the merciful right to die when they no longer have the strength to live. For Adults, euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002, but in December of 2013, they extended that law to cover youths. The extension of this law to youths called into question the ethics of the extension as well as the ethics of euthanasia

With the passing of the law permitting children to apply for euthanasia, a large amount of backlash and disapproval was to be expected. The main refutation was that the passing of this law will bring about Belgium being famous for “death tourism.” Death tourism, or “Euthanasia tourism” is a term used when a person travels to a country to take advantage of legal euthanasia. Protesters fear that this is what Belgium will be known most for, that people will only want to visit Belgium for legal euthanasia. Fortunately for them, that simply is not possible. To go along with the law, Belgium legislators have set up a list of steps that must be passed for a patient to be euthanized. To start, for all patients that seek euthanasia, they must pass a doctors and psychologists tests to qualify. Also, for children seeking Euthanasia, they must have guardians consent, and must be explained the gravity of the decision they are making. With these guidelines in place, there is no way a person could just ‘visit’ Belgium to be euthanized.

With the Belgians passing this law, the ethics of euthanasia itself were called into question.  Why would anyone want euthanasia to be legal? In America, it seems to be the norm to thing that euthanasia is wrong, that it is just medical murder.  Many see euthanasia as cowardice, and taking the easy way out. That simply isn’t true.  In the eyes of a patient with a terminal illness, euthanasia is much more.

So why would anyone want euthanasia to be legal? With a terminally ill patient, they are going to die as it is, and there is no need to actively kill them.  In his article “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”: A CASE AGAINST ACTIVE EUTHANASIA, Hui Edwin labels euthanasia as “active euthanasia,” and argues that “passive” euthanasia is far more ethical. Passive euthanasia is simply letting the disease take its course and allowing the patient to die. That sounds much more unethical than active euthanasia sounds. Simply letting someone die induces more pain than active euthanasia. When a pet owner sees that their pet is struggling with it’s health, they take it to the vet and have it euthanized. It is seen as a merciful act to end the pets pain. Why cant we extend the same mercy to humans? Edwin argues that active euthanasia is morally the same as killing someone, that it is to direct. But direct is what the terminally ill need.

For the terminally ill, life is a painful struggle.  They must deal with the constant pain that their disease brings.  Euthanasia would be a welcome end to all of this suffering.  In the case of fourteen year old Valentina Maureira, it was her dying wish.  Maureira, who suffers from cystic fibrosis, posted a video online asking her president to allow her to die. “I asked to speak urgently with the president, because I am tired of living with this disease.” she said. She was tired of dealing with the pain. Cystic fibrosis attacks the lungs and makes it difficult to breathe, among other symptoms.  Having seen her brother suffer and die from the same disease, Valentina knew what was ahead of her. With full support of her parents, she made the video to the president, which was viewed by thousands. With Euthanasia being illegal on her home country of Chile, the only thing the government could offer was to pay for psychiatric treatment. This raises another problem with euthanasia being illegal, the only solution involves expensive treatments.

The only real solution to terminal illness is constant use of medicine and experimental treatments, and this approach can be very expensive. According to the article “The Cost of Keeping the Terminally Ill Alive,” in 2009 Medicare paid $55 million just in doctors and medical bills during the last two months of patients’ lives.  It was also found that up to thirty percent of those expenses had no meaningful effect on the patient.  This method of keeping terminally ill patients alive not only just prolongs the inevitable,  it is also is a leading factor in the US’s problems with healthcare.  The worst part of the amount of money being spent in a patients last few month is that it is unnecessary.  Physician Richard Meyer explained that “Modern medicine has become so good at keeping the terminally ill alive by treating the complications of underlying disease that the inevitable process of dying has become much harder and is often prolonged unnecessarily.”  Whats the point of spending all this unnecessary money?  The patient is going to die, it is inevitable.  Why not save time money and suffering and allow the patient to do what they truly want to do, die?

For many cases, euthanasia would not just be a way out or a way to save money. Euthanasia could be empowering.  For someone fighting a terminal disease, knowing that they have a choice can be what they need to keep fighting.  With Euthanasia being illegal, if the patient wanted to take matters into their own hands, their only option would be suicide.  Suicide carries many negative connotations, and would be a dishonorable way for the patient to die.  If euthanasia was legal, it would offer them a light at the end of the tunnel, knowing that if the fight started to go south, they always had an honorable way out. Euthanasia would do more than give a patient a good death, it would give them the freedom to choose their death.  

In my study, I have found that euthanasia is more than a health issue, it is also a human rights issue.  Any country that illegalizes euthanasia takes away a very basic human right, the right to control over their lives.  In an article discussing the legalization of youth euthanasia in Belgium, they refer to it as “the right to die”, and I believe it is just that, a right.  Take the case of Valentina Maureira, she asked her president to allow her to die.  That just doesn’t seem right, needing government permission to die.  Shouldn’t we have the right to control our own lives?  Laws against euthanasia limit rights, freedoms, and legitimate jurisdiction over one’s own life.

Euthanasia is completely misjudged.  While many see it as a form of murder, or as a weak way out of life, it isn’t anything like that. For the terminally ill, euthanasia can be a welcome way out of pain and misery. It can empowering, and give them the hope needed to fight their disease. But it goes further than just that, and should be seen as a human rights issue, that legalizing it would expand jurisdiction over one’s own body. Belgium’s legalizing youth euthanasia is a step forward, one that the rest of the world should follow.

Works cited

Gibson, Charlotte. “Belgium Extends Euthanasia Law to Kids.” Time.com. Time Magazine. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Rodriguez, Cecilia. “Legal Euthanasia for Children In Belgium: Will It Trigger Death Tourism?” Time.com. Time Magazine. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. 

Meyer, Richard. “The Cost of Keeping the Terminally Ill Alive.” KevinMd.com. KevinMd, 16 Dec. 2010. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. 

“Chilean Girl Appeals to President to Be Allowed to Die.” BBCNews.com. BBC, 1 Mar. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Hui, Edwin, and W. BENTON Gibbard. “”THOU SHALT NOT KILL”: A CASE AGAINST ACTIVE EUTHANASIA.” Humanehealthcare.net. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 29 Mar. 2015