Ethical Dilemmas: Voluntary Euthanasia - Arguments For

Get yourself in a liberal, pragmatic state of mind. That's what's required for when we look at the arguments for voluntary euthanasia. Basically, the arguments amount to an affirmation of one's right to decide what should and shouldn't happen to one's body. There are also further practical arguments that we'll develop as we look at the reasons behind pro-choice attitudes in euthanasia.

Firstly, let's take a look at the issue of bodily autonomy. There is a basic need to preserve and promote the right to do what you like to your body, so long as your actions are in a rational state of mind, and do not harm others. When we apply this to euthanasia, it is very logical for a patient with terminal cancer to have the right to not want to undergo a painful process of treatment only to die anyway. The option to choose that you want to end your life should be taken seriously, and should not be thwarted by the differing norms of society, because after all, what do they know about the pain of having terminal cancer?

A case in point is that of Terri Schindler Schiavo, who was reduced to a vegetative state in 1990 after suffering from brain damage. In 1998 her husband filed for the end to life-prolonging measures, affirming that she was unconscious and unwilling. Her parents, however, opposed this, even after the local judicial system found in Terri's favour. Her bodily autonomy, recognised by her husband, was not considered by the parents. They saw their daughter as being in a conscious state, a reflection of their unwillingness to come to terms with losing their daughter by way of euthanasia. In many respects, this is the attitude stopping a patient's right to end the suffering. Despite concessions that the pain exists and is severe, many families simply cannot allow their relatives to be killed, even if it is a mercy killing.

Everyday we put animals out of their misery when they are in pain or have diseases. Why then, can this not be extended to humans? We are, after all, meant to be psychologically superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, and yet, we cannot come to terms with the simple emotional principle of loss, and the basic human problem of relinquishing control over each other so that personal will can take effect.

Now we come to the more pragmatic, practical argument. For every decision there is an opportunity cost. This is especially so in the health system. In keeping hundreds of terminally ill patients alive when they would be euthanized, we are effectively reducing our marginal capability to deal with patients that can recover. For example, by keeping a terminal cancer patient alive against their will, we are subjecting ourselves to having one less bed, four less doctors, and six less nurses to treat a twelve-year-old gunshot victim or someone with a curable state of cancer. This is a somewhat radical way to look at euthanasia, but nonetheless a valid one. Understand that this is not the primary reason to make euthanasia legal, but it is a flow-on benefit that will accrue.

The primary reason itself will always be the need to preserve patients' rights to avoid so much suffering and pain in the last days, weeks or months of their lives. We as a society need to take a step back and realise that our social norms and conservative views toward our responsibility to our people cannot be applied to those who suffer from a terminal illness. In the face of inevitable death, it is not our responsibility to save them their lives; it is our responsibility to save them their pain.