|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should assisted suicide be legalised? |
|
|
| |
Author:Bobby Webster ( United Kingdom )
Bobby Webster is a former World Schools Debating champion, and has taught debating on five continents. Currently working for Demos, the UK's leading independent think-tank, he is also a film-maker in his spare time. |
Created: Wednesday, November 01, 2000
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
|
| |
Assisted Suicide, also called Voluntary Euthanasia, is currently a contentious issue in many countries. The question in the debate is this: if a terminally ill person decides that they wish to end their life, is it acceptable for others to assist them? This would normally take the form of a doctor administering a lethal injection, which would end their life painlessly. A clear distinction must be made with involuntary euthanasia, by which someone is ‘put down’ against their wishes, and which is simply murder by another name. In the United States, Dr Jack Kervorkian – nicknamed ‘Doctor Death’ for his actions beliefs – has been campaigning for a change in the law for many years, and has assisted in the suicide of at least 45 people; he was recently found guilty of second degree murder and imprisoned after a widely publicised trial. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, voluntary euthanasia has been legal since 1983, with some 3,000 people requesting it each year. In Australia, assisted suicide was legalised in the Northern Territories with the backing of a substantial majority of the local population, but was then overthrown by the Federal Senate before anyone could actually use the new law. In Switzerland the Dignitas Clinic assists a great many people to kill themselves each year, including many who travel for that specific purpose from countries where assisted suicide is illegal.
As a great deal hinges on the practicalities of this debate, it is imperative that the proposition provide a fairly specific set of criteria to explain when assisted suicide would be legal and when it would not. It is worth looking at the legal procedures proposed in Australia and those in use in the Netherlands, as examples of the kind of safeguards which may be needed. |
 |
|
|
| Every human being has a right to life, perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. |
|
There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral. |
 |
|
|
| Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity. |
|
Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition. |
|
|
|
| Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil, nor is it a crime to attempt suicide. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. |
|
Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, if someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. |
|
|
|
| Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help. The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death. |
|
Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen. |
|
|
|
| At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. |
|
It is vital that a doctor’s role not be confused. The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. |
|
|
|
| | This House would legalise assisted suicide
This House would die with dignity
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
starfires
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 05:40 am |
|
| every person has a choice and nobody could make some die or live
|
Ceeper
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 04:05 pm |
|
| I think that if a person wants to die than they should be allowed to recieve assisted suicide. I believe that if a person is granted an unalienable right to life, then they should be granted the right to end it. If a persons life is not granting them happiness and the opportunity to do so then they should be allowed to end it in any way they see fit. If people choose to give up their life then why does it matter? I don't believe that Dr. assisted suicide should be a tri-partisan democracy, but that it should remain as confidentiality between patient and physician.
|
champ1001
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
| who gives you the right to say whether people should live or die. Once we cross the bridge of "Well this person is old,has cancer,etc and he should die. when do you do that to young teens in a car accident to killing them because they acted out at society and were DUI. WE MUST NOT GO THERE AS A SOCIETY
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
