Research Paper on Euthanasia

The topic of medically induced euthanasia has been a controversial topic amongst scholars, physicians, politicians, and the general public for centuries because they fall within the moral scope of human life as a human right, which has been universally defended for many years. However this term; euthanasia, generates conflicts at the social, moral, and ethical level. Mainly because we see death as a loss, which can be difficult to understand as something positive. Euthanasia is also associated with several horrific historical events such as the Nazi experiments & genocide, which has made the term seem more like “murder,” than to a kind a compassionate act. However, we have to take a multifaceted approach to this term and practice, and not just look at it as physician assisted “murder.” Recent texts mention that euthanasia is a process in which, through the use of revocation of clinical measures, the death of a patient in a incurable to terminal state can be hastened to avoid excessive suffering. The idea of euthanasia is to provide a dignified death to those in suffering, I would argue this is true for mental and emotional pain as well. 

The word euthanasia is derived from the the Greek word “eu” which means good, and the word “Thanatos” which means death; therefore, the etymological meaning of this word is “good death.” Throughout the centuries the evolution of the meaning has varied; to even be considered a form of eradication of people categorized under the designation of living a “lesser” dignified life. Assisted suicide is known as the condition in which a patient is the one who takes his own life through the ingestion of a lethal drug, but was prescribed by a physician that is trained in this area; therefore, its called assisted. However, this requires coordination through the a multidisciplinary medical team, along with a possible assessment by an ethics committee. This is to determine that the patient is exercising full autonomy, free from coercion, and that the individual has exhausted all possible curable measures. In a more literary sense, the word euthanasia meaning “giving death to a person who freely request it in order to free himself from suffering that is irreversible and that the person himself considers intolerable. According to the world health organization, “ the action performed by a person to cause the painless death of another subject, or not preventing death in case of terminal illness or irreversible coma. Furthermore, with the explicit condition that the patient must be suffering physical, emotional, or spiritual and that affliction is uncontrollable with conventional measures such as medical treatments, analgesics, among others; then the objective of euthanasia is to alleviate this suffering” (Picón-Jaimes, Yelson Alejandro, et al.) 

A quick history shows that euthanasia has a topic of interest throughout history. In book III of Plato’s, The Republic, he states, “those who live their lives amidst illness and medicines or who were not physically healthy should be left to die.” (Plato, et al.) Which clearly leads to the idea he believed, that those who suffer so much that their quality of life diminished should be allowed to die. However, we see that Hippocrates and his famous oath sought to protect the life of a patient in respects towards medicine, especially in conditions that were prone to fatal outcomes. The Hippocrates Oath is the same oath that permeates throughout time, and for those who’s position is against euthanasia and assisted suicide, constitutes an argument. Even without collected text, we see that the thoughts of Socrates and Plato both believed that it is understandable to think of ceasing ones life in the face of severe illness; to consider death to avoid tortuous agony. This is a fact that is compatible with he idea of current euthanasia. During the Roman Empire we can also see some for of euthanasia, as the terminally ill who committed suicide had sufficient reason to do so. In the Thomas More’s, Utopia, he affirmed that in the ideal nation, it should be given the necessary and supportive care to the dying. Throughout time there is numerous incidence of euthanasia, meaning this is not a new topic. 

With the discussion of euthanasia, it seems that the topic of “suffering” is only related to the idea of physical pain, or being terminally ill. However, theres an argument for emotional and mental pain to be associated with the term suffering. In a 2012 study, they found a link between emotion and pain, “Neurobiological research documents the neural processes that distinguish affective from sensory pain dimensions, link emotion and pain, and generate central nervous system pain sensitization. Psychological research demonstrates that greater pain is related to emotional stress and limited emotional awareness, expression, and processing.” (Lumley, Mark A, et al.) The study looked at serval additional studies with one that gave an example between emotion and pain, “repeated fear experiences can elicit anticipatory anxiety, thereby contributing to persistent pain. For example, rats exposed to the stress of swimming, social defeat, novel environments, cold, loud noise, or restraint exhibit long-term increases in pain sensitivity.” (Lumley, Mark A, et al.) With this data, there’s clear evidence linking emotion with pain. However, there’s a strong resistance to this concept, with limited acceptance. Providers in locations such as the Netherlands accept emotional pain as a valid reason for euthanasia, while the vast majority of the world is still very hesitant. 

Those seeking euthanasia and medically induced suicide are often looking for a dignified death. As we touched before, in ancient world this was seen as an acceptable reason to those with terminal conditions. Flash forward to modern time, we can look at Chris Hill’s, The Note, as a modern first hand rendition of emotional suffering. Hill went from being an extremely well traveled and educated man to a paraplegic in what he describes as a “hellish living nightmare.” Hill, being in such emotional distress wanted to end all of his suffering. He states, “People kill animals to put them out of their misery if they’re suffering even a tiny part of what I had to put up with, but I was never given the choice of a dignified death and I was very bitter about that.” (Hill pg.355) His emotional suffering became unbearable, and he even wished that current legislation would support his wishes, “I felt that the legislature’s and the medical profession’s attitude of life at any cost was an inhumane presumption that amounted to arrogance.” (Hill pg.355) However, during 1993, only a few states allowed euthanasia with very strict guidelines, with only terminally ill patients being granted the right to euthanasia. Hill would inevitably commit suicide. Ultimately, he as well as many others want to take control over their death, giving them a dignified death. 

This topic of a dignified death became such a hot topic across the world, that British High Court had taken up the case of Anthony Bland. Bland suffering a sports injury was subjected to a brain injury, and remained in a vegetative state. His physicians, Dr. Howe, and the hospitals administration wanted to with hold further care due to the patient suffering. The hospitals administrator applied to the Family Division of the High Court for a declaration that the hospital might lawfully discontinue all life-sustaining measures. This case ended up at the Court of Appeals, where the House of Lords agreed to terminate Bland’s life-sustaining measures. Sir Thomas Bingham states in his judgement, “Looking at the matter as objectively as I can, and doing my best to look at the matter through Mr Bland’s eyes and not my own, I cannot conceive what benefit his continued existence could be thought to give him.” (Singer pg.327) and Lord Mustill stated, “humane reasons of terminating the life of Anthony Bland by withholding from him the basic necessities of life.” (Singer pg. 328) This ruling contributes to ones dignity, and the right of the individual to die a dignified death. 

As time goes on, the attitudes towards the controversial topic of euthanasia may change. Euthanasia will remain a controversy as long as it falls within the moral scope of human life as a human right, which has been universally defended for many years. Throughout history, its definition has changed, but in most respects it has stayed generally the same, gearing towards the idea to let one “relieve” themselves of suffering through medically assisted suicide or euthanasia. This belief grants an individual the right to have control over their death, and provides them a way out of suffering when there is no other option. Euthanasia grants an individual a way to die in a dignified manner.