When the time comes doctor...

Nobody chooses their time of their birth, however, many of us would like to have a say in the manner and timing of their death. Nobody wishes a painful and violent death. Most would love to die old, happy, rich and peacefully. Euthanasia is a very controversial issue in the realm of religion, humanity, moral, legislation and ethics. Do human have the right to decide how and when they will die? If they do, do they have the right to help implementing the decision? If it does, is it possible to write legislation that will protect those who are old and chronically sick but wishes to live? My answer is yes, yes and yes.

The main concern of the opponents of euthanasia is the slippery slope effect from the legalising of euthanasia. They are afraid that by making euthanasia legal, many of the vulnerable group of old and sick would be coerced to the hastening of their death to suit the living. Yet, this argument is proposed based on one crucial assumption: it is impossible to make laws to prevent that. However, reality proved otherwise. It had be done before and can be done again. The Australian Territories Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2007 wrote an entire series of tight regulations to protect the terminally ill from being killed so that the family can obtain insurance money or any form of benefits. Moreover, the physicians carrying out euthanasia is also protected under the proposed law so that they are not forced to kill his/her patients. Plus, for one patient to be allowed to be killed, he/she must fulfill a lot of requirements stated in the bill. Therefore, there are no worries for the slippery slope because it is possible to write laws to prevent it from happening. The sick and the old who does not want to die can, indeed, be protected.

In the medical world, the term "double effect" raises quite a number of eyebrows and doctors of different doctrines squabble over it. It is the prescription of large doses of painkillers to patients so that they can kill themselves under the pretext of pain relieving. Legally, this is not a misdemeanour as long as the bottle didn't say "Take 50 and die". Yet, it is still a form of euthanasia, which is against the law. This shows that people can still circumvent existing laws to kill or assist killing the terminally ill. Take the case of Chantal Sebire. She suffered from a rare form of cancer called esthesioneuroblastoma, which she said, caused her pain sometimes up to four hours and her loss of almost all physical senses. Her plea for euthanasia was turned down by the French government (who has long been opposing euthanasia). Two days later, she was found dead in her house. Autopsy revealed that her blood contained lethal concentration of pentobarbital, a drug used for animal euthanasia not found in French pharmacies. When someone wishes his/her death, they will do anything to get what they want. Since suicide and attempted suicide is not illegal in most countries, why not just legalise euthanasia and let those people die lawfully with dignity? Euthanasia sounds much better than suicide, isn't it?

Another fear of the advocates of a "no to euthanasia" vote is that people will abuse it. Well, let's take a look at the figures of euthanasia carried out in the permissive Netherlands, which has over 30 years of experience dealing with this issue. From a publication of "Lancet", a medical journal, there are 35,000 general requests of euthanasia are made each year, together with 9,700 explicit ones. Given about 140,000 Dutch death annually, the number seems sky high. But bear in mind, they are just requests. Actual euthanasia is far rarer, about 5,000 a year, which amounts to 3.5% of the total deaths. Not a really big number. Even during the implementation of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 in the Northern Territory of Australia from 1995 to 1997, only 4, patients died under that act. Ergo, do these numbers show the abuse of euthanasia? I don't think so.

Religious people, on the other hand, argued that to live is a duty until one dies a natural death, that life is a gift from God and is not one's to dispose of, that it is a dignified death to die in the hands of God. Therefore, to them, performing euthanasia is playing God. Questions surround these arguments. If natural death means to die via sickness, old age or natural disasters, then what about those who are lost their lives in battlefields, motor vehicle mishaps, and any other forms of death? Are those who killed them, be it accidentally or not, playing God as well? What if a person is destined by God to die of euthanasia? Then, are their deaths natural? Any human action alters the nature's course of action, as pointed out by Hume, a Scottish philosopher. He gave an example that if a stone fell onto one's head, then he has already changed the natural course of the falling stone. If one accepts the dogma of that God is a "watch maker" who creates but don't interfere, then Hume's arguments seemed irrefutable.

The less religious argument against euthanasia is that it is plain unnatural to prematurely end one's life, and we owe the society not to kill ourselves. These are curiously double-edged. For the former argument, if it is unnatural to deliberately end one's life earlier than it should be, then it can be said the other way round that it is also unnatural to prolong one's life using life-supporting machines. As stated above, no human action is natural, because we interfere with every move, every breath, every act. As for their second argument, the opponents of euthanasia imply that human life is intrinsically valuable. But to whom? Oneself? The family? The society? Mother nature? God? If they are really valuable, just how valuable is it? Are the doomed lives of the terminally ill with quite a bleak future as valuable as that of a healthy young man with a much brighter prospect? As Hume said :"The life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster.". Hence, euthanasia is not devaluing life after all.

If you did not notice yet, the above arguments are free of the suffering of the terminally ill as just by how much pain one endures can only be known by one. Others can never know and understand the suffering until they are in that position. And it is extremely subjective. The level of endurance differs from one to another too. Everyone has the right to choose their way of life, so why not their way of death as well? But they should, while doing so, respect other's choice and not condemn them to right or wrong. Legalising euthanasia gives one the right to die, as to whether to exercise the right or not, that is purely personal and not of others to debate on.