Sunday, October 28, 2012

Euthanasia: The Right to a Dignified Death

Written by Timothy See Wen Hao

“Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death.”
Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being[1]

       For many people nearing the end of the journey of their lives, there is a strong desire for a good death; a painless and dignified death as opposed to one brought forth by disease and pain. In other cases, an individual may want to die as a means to end the suffering they are undergoing. Euthanasia is the solution sought by many individuals as a way to achieve the final goal of their life: a dignified death.

       What would qualify as a dignified death? According to Mosby's Medical Dictionary, it is where "a terminally ill client should be allowed to die naturally and comfortably, rather than experience a comatose, vegetative life prolonged by mechanical support systems."[2] It is simply a situation where a patient stricken with a terminal illness such as last stage cancer or a degenerative disease like the Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease have no chance at recovery and using medical systems to keep him alive will only serve to lengthen his suffering. In this case, the patient may strongly desire to be euthanised as a means to end his suffering and die in a state better off compared to death through the full onset of disease.

        It is, however, highly difficult for an individual to seek physician-assisted suicide with only Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the States of Oregon and Washington in the United States of America having legalised human euthanasia.[3] Milan Kundera wrote in The Unbearable Lightness of Being that animals have the right to a merciful death yet humans do not.[4] This statement serves to compare and question the fact that if we are able to grant animals a humane death, why we are unable to do so for ourselves. Are we incapable of granting individuals in our society mercy by sparing them the need of long term suffering from illnesses and diseases that cannot be treated by medical science? If soldiers in war could practise coup de grâce as an act of final respect and mercy on those who are unable to seek medical aid and will only suffer until their inevitable death, the society should also be able to grant such a form of treatment to those who need and qualify for it.







[1] The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera
[2]  Definition of dignified death, Mosby's Medical Dictionary
[3] Euthanasia Map from www.euthanasia.com/euthanasiamap
[4] Refer to [1]

2 comments:

  1. I think euthanasia is not a wrong thing. But I also think there is a problem of self-determination. If the patient is a vegetable‐like state or something like this, other people can't know if he wants to live longer or not...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's put you in that situation now: You undergone a stroke, you suffer a lock-in syndrome and you are paralysed from the neck down. You have lost your ability to speak. Your only means of communication is by blinking. One perfect example would be Tony Nicklinson. He went to the court to fight for an immunity for whichever doctor he would approach to aid him with self-termination due to the fact that he has lock in syndrome and he feels that life is no longer worth living being unable to do anything else but to breathe, blink and think. Here we are talking about an individual seeking aid from another party to end his life and not him totally being in coma and not able to convey his wishes.

    ReplyDelete