Ethical Dilemmas: Voluntary Euthanasia - Arguments Against

When it comes to euthanasia, modern society is torn between an ethical rock and a hard place. On one hand we have the conservative cross-section of society which is actively opposed to the idea of state-sanctioned killing and the right to choose when one can die. On the other, there are the more liberal thinkers among us who affirm that euthanasia should be a voluntary option for those suffering from an incurable affliction. Let's take a look at the reasons behind anti-euthanasia attitudes.

The main reason for not condoning a patient's decision to be euthanized is based on morality. Basically, the idea of the state effectively allowing people to kill themselves seems from a socially conservative point of view, morally abhorrent. There is an inherent need to protect society from degrading itself to a moral standard that no longer values the right to life, and allows people to simply give up when the going gets tough - even if that toughness is constituted by terminal cancer.

Of course there are other arguments, more founded on practicalities rather than principle. How can, for example, a child or teen with terminal cancer make a decision to end his or her life? These are kids who we don't allow the decision to vote or consume alcohol; so is it fair, therefore, to be confident in allowing them the right to choose whether they will live or die? No.

This is where we open another moral can of worms. You see, in doing the socially conservative good thing - denying children and teenagers this right that we would supposedly give an adult - there would be a certain inequality within an already morally flawed proposal to give society the option to euthanize. This is that it cannot be morally justified having sixteen-year-olds feeling the same pain as nineteen-year-olds kept alive against their will for the sake of not being of the legal age of accountability. This is especially so for a psychologically precocious sixteen-year-old, whose maturity is not defined by an age of accountability.

Questions can also be raised about patients afflicted with conditions that affect their capacity to make good judgements. How is it possible for a victim of a car crash reduced to a vegetative state to make the judgement to be euthanized? Sure, the patient can have a living will stating that euthanasia would be preferred if in a vegetative state, but can we be sure that in their comatose state, they aren't simply a time bomb waiting to explode into consciousness? And if they are, is it right to forego that possible recovery for the sake of supposedly putting patients out of their misery?

The problem with a living will also lies in the issue of family pressure. Should Granny get terminal cancer that would cost millions of dollars to treat only to end in her demise, what would be the best way for the family to deal with that? Surely, the frail old dear can be persuaded to save the family some hassle and submit to changing her will so that should the time come, she, and the family bank accounts, will be taken care of.

In summing up, the basic arguments against euthanasia come in two main areas. Firstly, those of morality and how we must preserve the right to life, and secondly, the more complex practical issues; when we apply euthanasia to society, like everything else there needs to be a criterion for eligibility and a system of execution, excuse the pun. Unlike most other things, however, this is a case where there can never be enough safeguards in place to stop the system being exploited or to fill the holes that are created by a system that does not cater to everyone equally.