Euthanasia - the termination of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering.
Truly a topic that in a strange way - has always interested me. The first time I was really exposed to the harsh, cold reality of euthanasia was during an A Level law class, in which we were required to look at it under the umbrella of morality.
Really, there are two clear, black and white sides to this argument. Those for, and those against - although the reasons behind a persons sidings are not always as clear cut. There are harrowing cases of paralysis, or the aftermath of strokes and comas where it just seems barbarically cruel to allow someone to continue with life, when they have already mentally given up the fight and no longer want to live, but cannot physically end the suffering themselves. On the other hand, we have religion. God gives life, only god can take life away. This being one of the main reasons that the UK has so far said no to allowing euthanasia. There is also the argument that by accepting euthanasia we are accepting that some lives (those of the sick, or disabled) are less worthy than others.
However what are the pros and cons of euthanasia? Should we allow those who want to, to end their lives and their suffering? Or would there never be enough regulation to make this safe, ending in a slippery slope towards non-voluntary euthanasia?
Dignitas
A Swiss group, set up with the specific intentions to allow people to go and take their lives, in a calm, peaceful and pain free manner. Many from the UK have flown out to use the services provided by Dignitas, as we currently do not offer them here. Some people though fear that if loved ones are to accompany them, on their return to the UK they will be prosecuted as assisted suicide is illegal. Thus far, no-one ever has.
Before really looking into it, for some reason I was under the impression that after a few email exchanges, or maybe a phone call or two, that really, that would be it. I would be set up to head over to Switzerland and would be able to end my life (yes, I now realise how stupid that does in fact seem). I couldn't be more wrong. There are a series of things any perspective user must do in order to even be considered by Dignitas.
1) You must be a member. Costing around £210.
2) You must be of sound judgement and of at least minimal movement (in order to self administer the drugs)
3) Situation wise you must be either a) terminally ill b) of incapacitating and unendurable disability c) in unbearable and uncontrollable pain
4) You're then required to write a letter to the company. In this letter you must explain your situation, the pain that you are in and how it affects you. You must then create a biographical sketch explaining your relationship with your next of kin. Including whether or not they support your decision. You must also include a current medical report, together with 3 to 4 old ones.
Only after carrying out these steps will you even be considered for the use of Dignitas' clinic.
In order to end your life, you're firstly given an anti sickness drug. You are then expected to self administer (it is usually a drink if you can swallow, if not through your feeding tube) the lethal dose of NaP. This drug within 2 to 5 minutes will send you to sleep, and then into a deep coma. Soon after your respiratory centre becomes paralysed, leading to death. All pain-free. So surely this is the perfect solution for anyone who truly wants to end their life?
Sadly, that is not always the case. As before mentioned, many from the UK fear prosecution, which holds them back from travelling to Dignitas. Some, cannot self administer, meaning that Dignitas cannot help them. Many of you would have heard the case of Tony Nicklinson.
A husband and a father. An active man until a stroke in 2005 left him paralysed from the neck down and unable to speak.
He went to court, and pleaded that a doctor should be allowed to help him die. The answer was no. Tony Nicklinson was therefore forced to carry out a sentence of life, although having done nothing wrong.
So, put yourself in this situation for a moment. You're a young, healthy human being. You're married, you have kids. One day, out of the blue, your life changes in every single way. You can no longer talk, ask for what you need, or what you want. On top of that you can't walk - in fact you cannot actually move, so you can't do anything for yourself. Your dignity is stripped from you, as is your independence and you have to depend on your spouse, kids and careers to do everything for you. Although, 6 months ago you could do every day things and not think twice about it.
So would you want to live? Morality is a subjective concept, but is it moral on any level to make someone live when their only wish is to die? Sadly in this case, Mr Nicklinson was left with one choice, he refused to eat, and eventually in what I can only imagine would have been indescribable pain, passed away.
'We wouldn't keep an animal who is in pain, who is losing quality of life, of dying alive. So why do we put our fellow humans through this disgusting treatment?'
I mean, regardless of my own feelings, I can see why judges and parliament are hesitant to change the UK laws. Besides from a religious backlash that would be a result of any changes to law, could we really regulate this in a way that will help and not hinder. It could go one of two ways if the law was ever changed, over or under regulation, both of which would be catastrophic. If we over regulate, there is no real point in changing the law. The amount of people who would benefit would be minimal and we would still be leaving many in a bad situation - and with no one ever currently being prosecuted for accompanying someone to dignitas you may as well take the risk.
With regards to religion and the part it plays in the legalisation of euthanasia, it is definitely a difficult one. The argument goes that God gave us free will, however, by taking your own, or aiding someone else to take their life is denying God his rights. His right is over our lives, how it ends and more importantly WHEN it ends.
There is also an argument that once you allow euthenasia you then start the slippery slope towards involuntary euthenasia (I.e. Doctors not getting the necessary permission but killing the patient anyway). For reasons including resources - we already lack massively in things such as beds at local hospitals. Terminally ill patients could be persuaded into euthenasia by doctors as a way to save money and free up the resources being used. A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients [Arch. Intern. Med., 5/11/98, p. 974].
Personally, I feel this is such a hard subject to discuss, so many conflicting views and opinions make it one that most would probably avoid. Although it may sound cruel, or sadistic to some, I am all for euthanasia. I agree with the whole "we wouldn't put an animal through it, so why do we put humans through it" argument. Also for me, I feel like this allows us some dignity in dying. If I was ever put into a situation where I knew my illness would get progressively worse, leaving me bed bound and in incredible amounts of pain and suffering I would like to think I would put myself out of my own misery - rather than allow what could be a long and painful wait. I agree that this would take heavy regulation, but it is such a necessary law to now allow. With the work of people such as Debbie Purdy, and the family of Tony Nicklinson and charities such as 'Dignity in Dying' I hope it won't be long until the choice is made available to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment