Euthanasia
In recent years, Euthanasia has become a very heated debate. It is a Greek word that means “easy death” but the controversy surrounding it is just the opposite. Whether the issue is refusing prolonged life mechanically, assisting suicide, or active euthanasia, we eventually confront our society’s fears toward death itself. Above others, our culture breeds fear and dread of aging and dying. It is not easy for most of the western world to see death as an inevitable part of life. However, the issues that surround euthanasia are not only about death, they are about ones liberty, right to privacy and control over his or her own body. So, the question remains: Who has the right?
Under current U.S. law, there are clear distinctions between the two types of euthanasia. One group of actions taken to bring about the death of a dying patient -withdrawal of life support, referred to by some as passive euthanasia-has been specifically upheld by the courts as a legal right of a patient to request and a legal act for a doctor to perform. A second group of actions taken to bring about the death of a dying patient -physician-assisted death, referred to by some as active euthanasia- is specifically prohibited by laws in most states banning “mercy killing” and is condemned by the American Medical Association.
Although it is not a crime to be present when a person takes his or her life, it is a crime to take direct action intentionally designed to help facilitate death—no matter 1, how justifiable and compassionate the circumstances may be.
In India euthanasia is not recognized by the law and is considered illegal. In recent times there have been cases of bedridden patients appealing to the court to grant them permission to end their life as it is extremely painful for them to continue as a mere vegetable. Family of patients who are on ventilators and have been in coma for a couple of years have also filed an appeal for mercy killing, however as the Indian penal code does not recognize euthanasia, any such death will be termed as suicide or murder.
It may be refuted that euthanasia is contradictory to human rights; however, it is actually the ultimate human right. In a democratic society, the prevalent one today, everyone is endowed with the right – “pursuit of happiness.” However, to be afflicted with pain, whose only end is death not purgation as it usually is, is contradictory to this right: pain is not happiness.
The possibility of death must be open, therefore, to preserve happiness. Another reason why euthanasia must be allowed is because of dignity, or self-respect. Usually, patients with a terminal disease see everything they cherished fall apart. For example, a cancer patient who is in the last stage would feel pain so great that, when he dies, he would remember the world not full of love, but full of pain. The family would feel the same, seeing a loved one depart suffering to no prevail. Thus, to remember one’s life as dignifying, one must have the right for euthanasia.
In conclusion, for the inalienable right, “pursuit of happiness,” and dignity, euthanasia must be supported There might be those who say this is an abuse of life, but this is but a quantitative view of life. Euthanasia, on the other hand, focus on the quality of life. Thus, mercy killing must be allowed, for its “quality that counts.”
