Euthanasia: Death without Dignity
As long as sickness has plagued humanity, there has always existed a desire in the suffering to be freed from the burdens it entails. Over the centuries, the fulfillment of their wishes happened secretly, hidden from society. But during the 19th and 20th centuries, with the advent of evolutionist theory and the subsequent decline of organized religion, acts, which for so long had been concealed due to the scandal they would inevitably provoke, came into public view. These acts, namely homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, although ever-present since the dawn of humanity, had never been presumed morally right- their perpetration almost always resulted in shame and infamy. But now, after the public emergence of these once-dishonorable deeds has occurred, society seeks to revolutionize itself even further and shatter the negative perceptions associated with their commission- perceptions which caused them to be suppressed in the first place.
As could be expected, out of the three aforementioned issues, the one which originally seemed most acceptable for widespread, unrestricted implementation was euthanasia. The reasons for this are obvious. We, as humans, desire to achieve purpose and recognition in our lives while avoiding the things loathsome to our nature. In these are included pain, uselessness, fear, and dependence. Unfortunately, the inescapable process of aging is often accompanied by such troubles, causing the memorable parts of our lives to be obstructed by the suffering we are ultimately forced to undergo. Thus, it would be compassionate and merciful if the dying process was amended in order to eradicate the fear and suffering associated with death and, through this, triumph over its power forever.
Religious beliefs aside, such should be the sentiment of every sensible human being. But no matter how intrinsically human the desire to be free from suffering and death is, the unfortunate truth is euthanasia cannot be effectively legalized while at the same time preserving the dignity of life. Its allowance, even if only for the terminally ill, would lead to the crossing of the proverbial Rubicon and ultimately cause suicide to become a viable option for everyone experiencing difficulties, not just those in dire need of relief.
In the Netherlands, such a disastrous course of events has already occurred. Although officially illegal, euthanasia, along with drug use and prostitution, has been commonly practiced and tolerated for years (Woodman 80). What's more, most citizens and physicians approve of its use. According to a survey of physicians done by a special commission headed by Professor Jan Remmelink, the attorney general of the Dutch Supreme Court, over 50% of the nation's physicians practiced euthanasia; of the 130,000 annual deaths in the country, 49,000 involved some kind of medical intervention. Most shocking of all, however, was the finding that in over 1000 cases, physicians had euthanized patients unable to make the decision on their own (Woodman 82-83).
Many are appalled, and rightfully so; it is inexcusable, under whatever circumstances, for a physician to make an autonomous decision on something as personal as a patient's death. Moreover, even when doctors did consult with patients and heed their wishes, as in the case of
Dr. Sippe Schat, records of PASs (physician assisted suicides) were falsified and called natural deaths (Woodman 69-70). Such conduct poses a clear violation of Dutch legislative guidelines, which require that formal notification is sent to the local medical officer, written consent is obtained from the patient (given the patient is capable of making an independent decision), and the cause of death is accurately recorded (Woodman 72). These guidelines, since their institution by the Dutch Medical Association in 1984, have allowed physicians to perform euthanasia without legal ramifications for years. However, public opinion on euthanasia has changed considerably since 1984- especially so in the Netherlands- causing such guidelines to become obsolete and, consequently, be disregarded by physicians and PAS proponents alike.
The collapse of legal restrictions in the Netherlands has resulted in an increase of PASs performed on the legally and ethically ineligible. Among others, there are reports of euthanasia administered to comatose patients, malformed infants, and persons with no history of physical ailment who simply wanted to end their lives (Woodman 84). The most prominent of the latter cases was the Boomsma affair (Woodman 84). Netty Boomsma was a physically healthy 50-year-old woman who suffered from severe depression due to the deaths of her two sons.
After many ineffectual therapy sessions and support group meetings, Boomsma was referred to prominent psychiatrist Dr. Boudewijn Chabot. She told him that after the deaths of her sons, everything seemed "so senseless, so empty," and asked him to liberate her from the hell that her life had become. She refused to take antidepressants and take part in counseling; in her eyes, nothing would ever be the same again (Woodman 85). After months of deliberation, Chabot agreed to help her. He provided her with a prescription for lethal drugs, which she mixed into a bowl of custard and consumed. Within half an hour after ingesting the poison, Netty Boomsma was dead.
Such an exploitation of euthanasia is offensive to life itself. In human life, the obstacles to happiness and success are vast. However, these obstacles, instead of disheartening us from life, should strengthen our will to overcome. Indisputably, losses such as Boomsma's are highly traumatic. Thus, her desire for death was completely understandable. But grief passes, and with it the desire to die. Netty Boomsma was not wrong in asking for death; her physician, however, was wrong in making it accessible to her. Situations like hers, although difficult, have the capability to eventually improve if given the chance. But the lack of gravity with which euthanasia is approached in the Netherlands prevented Netty Boomsma from even getting that chance.
As pointed out by Herbert Hendin, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the New York Medical College, in his book Seduced by Death: Physicians, Patients, and the Dutch Cure, "Virtually every guideline established by the Dutch to regulate euthanasia has been modified or violated with impunity... What the Dutch intended was supposedly an extreme measure in extreme cases, but it has become the easy alternative- almost a routine way of dealing with serious illness, and even depression." Dutch society, since the 1980s, has moved from euthanasia for the terminally ill to the chronically ill, from those with physical illness to those with psychological illness, and ultimately, from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia. Moreover, all this occurred while PAS was officially illegal. It could be imagined, then, how much more demoralized things would have become if it was legal.
The history of euthanasia in the Netherlands proves the impossibility of its legalization only for its rightful recipients, the terminally ill. With the emphasis placed on freedom and equality in today's society, it is impossible to pass laws geared at only a single demographic. Thus, if euthanasia was allowed for the terminally ill, others- prospectively those suffering from psychological disorders or depression- would cite its legalization as an infringement on their "rights." This, in turn, due to the allegations of discrimination which it poses, would ultimately cause euthanasia's universal ratification.
In addition to the moral and philosophical conflicts that the worldwide legalization of euthanasia would create, there are also several precarious economic consequences that could potentially result. The first of these would be, in large part, caused by the current exploitation of insurance companies by physicians ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). Due to the huge costs insurance companies are forced to pay because of their recipients' end-of-life treatments, many of them are plagued by constant financial insecurity. The common use of euthanasia in lieu of expensive last-ditch treatments would result in that insecurity being, to a large extent, alleviated ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). Thus, if euthanasia was legalized, insurance companies would push for its use in "hopeless" cases in place of risky medical treatment, which would, in turn, make it extremely difficult to obtain quality end-of-life medical care.
Also, with euthanasia universally accepted as the most feasible option for hopeless cases, it would become almost obligatory for all terminally ill patients to choose it over chancy medical care. Those in favor of euthanasia say that such a thing wouldn't happen. But they overlook the emotional and psychological pressures dependent or depressed people would face if euthanasia was an option ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). Due to the financial and emotional burdens the terminally ill pose for their families, many would feel guilty for not choosing death. This, in turn, would cause an increase in euthanasia done for the sake of caregivers against the true wishes of the patient, a form of involuntary euthanasia in itself.
Contrary to what euthanasia advocates may proclaim, there is another option for terminally ill patients who desire death with dignity- hospice care. Today, pain control medicines and procedures are far better than they have been at any other time in history ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.) But their potential in end-of-life treatment is often overlooked by conventional hospitals, thus causing many patients to harbor a desire for death due to the pain they suffer. Conversely, hospices prevent such a desire from emerging because of their utilization of such treatments. In hospices, terminally ill patients are provided with compassionate end-of-life treatment and pain suppression, all the while without being overly dependent on families and caregivers ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). They allow for patients with even the most serious illnesses to experience peaceful deaths without the use of active medical intervention, and, thus, prevent the trivialization of life.
If euthanasia was legalized, even if only for the terminally ill, it would eventually result in it becoming an option for all who wanted to end their lives. Also, its legalization would prompt insurance companies to eliminate funding for end-of-life treatment, thus causing the worldwide decay of medical care for the elderly and terminally ill. Finally, it would create factors- namely the feeling of being a financial and psychological burden- which would influence patients to choose euthanasia even if it wasn't what they truly wanted.
For thousands of years, both religious and atheistic societies outlawed the perpetration of euthanasia, predicting that its legalization would lead to its implementation in inappropriate cases ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). But now, euthanasia supporters are trying to discard the accumulated wisdom of all preceding civilizations and foolishly allow suicide on-demand, thus instigating a series of potentially devastating consequences. With an alternative such as hospice care in existence, there should be no need for euthanasia, as the former can provide the same end result, death with dignity, without the aforementioned detrimental consequences.
As well-known author, satirist, and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge once said, "This life in us; however low it flickers or fiercely burns, is still a divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives never so humane and enlightened; To suppose otherwise is to countenance a death-wish; Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." The implementation of universal euthanasia, however, would commit just that hypocrisy; it would declare the inviolability of life while at the same time allowing for its desecration.
Works Cited
Crumley-Paris, Bruce. "Making a Case for Euthanasia." TIME 15 Mar. 2008. Print.
"Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." Bbc.co.uk. Web.
Woodman, Sue. Last Rights: The Struggle over the Right to Die. New York: Plenum, 1998. Print.
As long as sickness has plagued humanity, there has always existed a desire in the suffering to be freed from the burdens it entails. Over the centuries, the fulfillment of their wishes happened secretly, hidden from society. But during the 19th and 20th centuries, with the advent of evolutionist theory and the subsequent decline of organized religion, acts, which for so long had been concealed due to the scandal they would inevitably provoke, came into public view. These acts, namely homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, although ever-present since the dawn of humanity, had never been presumed morally right- their perpetration almost always resulted in shame and infamy. But now, after the public emergence of these once-dishonorable deeds has occurred, society seeks to revolutionize itself even further and shatter the negative perceptions associated with their commission- perceptions which caused them to be suppressed in the first place.
As could be expected, out of the three aforementioned issues, the one which originally seemed most acceptable for widespread, unrestricted implementation was euthanasia. The reasons for this are obvious. We, as humans, desire to achieve purpose and recognition in our lives while avoiding the things loathsome to our nature. In these are included pain, uselessness, fear, and dependence. Unfortunately, the inescapable process of aging is often accompanied by such troubles, causing the memorable parts of our lives to be obstructed by the suffering we are ultimately forced to undergo. Thus, it would be compassionate and merciful if the dying process was amended in order to eradicate the fear and suffering associated with death and, through this, triumph over its power forever.
Religious beliefs aside, such should be the sentiment of every sensible human being. But no matter how intrinsically human the desire to be free from suffering and death is, the unfortunate truth is euthanasia cannot be effectively legalized while at the same time preserving the dignity of life. Its allowance, even if only for the terminally ill, would lead to the crossing of the proverbial Rubicon and ultimately cause suicide to become a viable option for everyone experiencing difficulties, not just those in dire need of relief.
In the Netherlands, such a disastrous course of events has already occurred. Although officially illegal, euthanasia, along with drug use and prostitution, has been commonly practiced and tolerated for years (Woodman 80). What's more, most citizens and physicians approve of its use. According to a survey of physicians done by a special commission headed by Professor Jan Remmelink, the attorney general of the Dutch Supreme Court, over 50% of the nation's physicians practiced euthanasia; of the 130,000 annual deaths in the country, 49,000 involved some kind of medical intervention. Most shocking of all, however, was the finding that in over 1000 cases, physicians had euthanized patients unable to make the decision on their own (Woodman 82-83).
Many are appalled, and rightfully so; it is inexcusable, under whatever circumstances, for a physician to make an autonomous decision on something as personal as a patient's death. Moreover, even when doctors did consult with patients and heed their wishes, as in the case of
Dr. Sippe Schat, records of PASs (physician assisted suicides) were falsified and called natural deaths (Woodman 69-70). Such conduct poses a clear violation of Dutch legislative guidelines, which require that formal notification is sent to the local medical officer, written consent is obtained from the patient (given the patient is capable of making an independent decision), and the cause of death is accurately recorded (Woodman 72). These guidelines, since their institution by the Dutch Medical Association in 1984, have allowed physicians to perform euthanasia without legal ramifications for years. However, public opinion on euthanasia has changed considerably since 1984- especially so in the Netherlands- causing such guidelines to become obsolete and, consequently, be disregarded by physicians and PAS proponents alike.
The collapse of legal restrictions in the Netherlands has resulted in an increase of PASs performed on the legally and ethically ineligible. Among others, there are reports of euthanasia administered to comatose patients, malformed infants, and persons with no history of physical ailment who simply wanted to end their lives (Woodman 84). The most prominent of the latter cases was the Boomsma affair (Woodman 84). Netty Boomsma was a physically healthy 50-year-old woman who suffered from severe depression due to the deaths of her two sons.
After many ineffectual therapy sessions and support group meetings, Boomsma was referred to prominent psychiatrist Dr. Boudewijn Chabot. She told him that after the deaths of her sons, everything seemed "so senseless, so empty," and asked him to liberate her from the hell that her life had become. She refused to take antidepressants and take part in counseling; in her eyes, nothing would ever be the same again (Woodman 85). After months of deliberation, Chabot agreed to help her. He provided her with a prescription for lethal drugs, which she mixed into a bowl of custard and consumed. Within half an hour after ingesting the poison, Netty Boomsma was dead.
Such an exploitation of euthanasia is offensive to life itself. In human life, the obstacles to happiness and success are vast. However, these obstacles, instead of disheartening us from life, should strengthen our will to overcome. Indisputably, losses such as Boomsma's are highly traumatic. Thus, her desire for death was completely understandable. But grief passes, and with it the desire to die. Netty Boomsma was not wrong in asking for death; her physician, however, was wrong in making it accessible to her. Situations like hers, although difficult, have the capability to eventually improve if given the chance. But the lack of gravity with which euthanasia is approached in the Netherlands prevented Netty Boomsma from even getting that chance.
As pointed out by Herbert Hendin, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the New York Medical College, in his book Seduced by Death: Physicians, Patients, and the Dutch Cure, "Virtually every guideline established by the Dutch to regulate euthanasia has been modified or violated with impunity... What the Dutch intended was supposedly an extreme measure in extreme cases, but it has become the easy alternative- almost a routine way of dealing with serious illness, and even depression." Dutch society, since the 1980s, has moved from euthanasia for the terminally ill to the chronically ill, from those with physical illness to those with psychological illness, and ultimately, from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia. Moreover, all this occurred while PAS was officially illegal. It could be imagined, then, how much more demoralized things would have become if it was legal.
The history of euthanasia in the Netherlands proves the impossibility of its legalization only for its rightful recipients, the terminally ill. With the emphasis placed on freedom and equality in today's society, it is impossible to pass laws geared at only a single demographic. Thus, if euthanasia was allowed for the terminally ill, others- prospectively those suffering from psychological disorders or depression- would cite its legalization as an infringement on their "rights." This, in turn, due to the allegations of discrimination which it poses, would ultimately cause euthanasia's universal ratification.
In addition to the moral and philosophical conflicts that the worldwide legalization of euthanasia would create, there are also several precarious economic consequences that could potentially result. The first of these would be, in large part, caused by the current exploitation of insurance companies by physicians ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). Due to the huge costs insurance companies are forced to pay because of their recipients' end-of-life treatments, many of them are plagued by constant financial insecurity. The common use of euthanasia in lieu of expensive last-ditch treatments would result in that insecurity being, to a large extent, alleviated ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). Thus, if euthanasia was legalized, insurance companies would push for its use in "hopeless" cases in place of risky medical treatment, which would, in turn, make it extremely difficult to obtain quality end-of-life medical care.
Also, with euthanasia universally accepted as the most feasible option for hopeless cases, it would become almost obligatory for all terminally ill patients to choose it over chancy medical care. Those in favor of euthanasia say that such a thing wouldn't happen. But they overlook the emotional and psychological pressures dependent or depressed people would face if euthanasia was an option ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). Due to the financial and emotional burdens the terminally ill pose for their families, many would feel guilty for not choosing death. This, in turn, would cause an increase in euthanasia done for the sake of caregivers against the true wishes of the patient, a form of involuntary euthanasia in itself.
Contrary to what euthanasia advocates may proclaim, there is another option for terminally ill patients who desire death with dignity- hospice care. Today, pain control medicines and procedures are far better than they have been at any other time in history ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.) But their potential in end-of-life treatment is often overlooked by conventional hospitals, thus causing many patients to harbor a desire for death due to the pain they suffer. Conversely, hospices prevent such a desire from emerging because of their utilization of such treatments. In hospices, terminally ill patients are provided with compassionate end-of-life treatment and pain suppression, all the while without being overly dependent on families and caregivers ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). They allow for patients with even the most serious illnesses to experience peaceful deaths without the use of active medical intervention, and, thus, prevent the trivialization of life.
If euthanasia was legalized, even if only for the terminally ill, it would eventually result in it becoming an option for all who wanted to end their lives. Also, its legalization would prompt insurance companies to eliminate funding for end-of-life treatment, thus causing the worldwide decay of medical care for the elderly and terminally ill. Finally, it would create factors- namely the feeling of being a financial and psychological burden- which would influence patients to choose euthanasia even if it wasn't what they truly wanted.
For thousands of years, both religious and atheistic societies outlawed the perpetration of euthanasia, predicting that its legalization would lead to its implementation in inappropriate cases ("Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." n.pag.). But now, euthanasia supporters are trying to discard the accumulated wisdom of all preceding civilizations and foolishly allow suicide on-demand, thus instigating a series of potentially devastating consequences. With an alternative such as hospice care in existence, there should be no need for euthanasia, as the former can provide the same end result, death with dignity, without the aforementioned detrimental consequences.
As well-known author, satirist, and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge once said, "This life in us; however low it flickers or fiercely burns, is still a divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives never so humane and enlightened; To suppose otherwise is to countenance a death-wish; Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." The implementation of universal euthanasia, however, would commit just that hypocrisy; it would declare the inviolability of life while at the same time allowing for its desecration.
Works Cited
Crumley-Paris, Bruce. "Making a Case for Euthanasia." TIME 15 Mar. 2008. Print.
"Ethics: Arguments against Euthanasia." Bbc.co.uk. Web.
Woodman, Sue. Last Rights: The Struggle over the Right to Die. New York: Plenum, 1998. Print.
