1.

Introduction Mercy killing or easy death in English is also known as good death or euthanasia

which is a Greek word according to Kasule (n.d.). According to Merriam-Webster dictionary (2013), it is known as the process or operation of intentionally ending incurable or hopelessly sick humans or domestic animals life with permission for sympathy or humanity reasons to end pain and suffering in a little or painless way possible. The practice is usually carried out at the patients appeal but in a few cases, the last call was made by spouse or family, medical officer or even by the court as they could be too ill to make decisions (Moffitt, 2001). Euthanasia can be categorized into firstly, voluntary euthanasia, where someone wants their life to end willingly or make living will saying so, legal in some countries like Netherlands and Britain. Secondly, non voluntary euthanasia, where the patients are incompetent and others have to decide for them and lastly, involuntary euthanasia that is illegal in all countries and can be considered as murder because the patient is competent and clearly stated that they do not want to be killed (Cohen-Almagor, 2003). Kasule (n.d.) stated that there are two kind of patients associated with euthanasia, one is those who can respond to some stimuli but have impaired brain function which also known as vegetative state. They depend on artificial life support like respirator and intra - venous nutrition. Another type, Kasule (n.d.) added is patient with fatal illness that include excruciating pain, mental illness, loss of pride and they may be life support dependent or not. Rachels (1975) said that either doing something to allow euthanasia like giving a fatal injection or not doing anything compulsory and let the person die such as declining to feed them is an act of euthanasia. Emanuel (2002) stated although many people said so, pain is not the main reason patients requested euthanasia. It usually comes with depression, feeling of hopelessness and the sense of burden and being independent to others (Emanuel, 2002). This issue had been debated for years by countless parties and is considered in many ways and aspects including religiously, ethically, medically and practically. Euthanasia should be made illegal because all religion in Malaysia believes that only God has the power of humans life and it is an act of murder as every human life should be worth its guarantee, safety and protection and human life deserves exceptional security and protection. However, euthanasia can be considered an option in distinct cases if the medication does not improved the patients health.

1.1

All religions in Malaysia believes that only God has the power on humans life. The major religions in Malaysia; Islam, Christian, Hindu and Buddha are all against

euthanasia because any act of interfering with what is fated to their faithful followers is interfering with Gods will. Kasule (n.d.) stated that in Islam, euthanasia is an attempt to breach sacred privilege human life because it violates the resolution of religion. He also stated that there is always treatment and future scientific research to find cure for every disease. Every disease has a treatment known or discoverable by further scientific research. Lengthen of life-span and delay death is not the ability for human even when they preserve their life because those are prerogatives to God alone. Euthanasia is same as suicide, homicide, and genocide because it indirectly leads to the violation of the purpose of preserving progeny by cheapening the value of humans life. This is why euthanasia is illegal in Islam because it violates the law of Maqasid Al-sharia (Kasule, n.d.). This statement is strengthen by the Buddhist belief. Barua (n.d.) stated that euthanasia is prohibited due to affirmative life evaluation. The Buddhist eventual aim is to overcome death. However, they say that death is the one that they must to face and it is unavoidable. This condition represents in Buddhist art called Samsara. Other than that, Barua (n.d.) claims that in Digha-Nikaya of Pali Canon, euthanasia is against the concept which is non-injury to life because it can cause death. For Christian sharing in Christ's passion, union with the reclaim of the sacrifice that He offered in compliance to Father's will and provide the best spot in His saving plan by suffering is believed in Christianity (Peschke, 1992). The longest and the greatest of agony dying will be the last phase of his life with God affirmation. In this stage, they are not allow to shorten the life even though to decrease the persons suffering. Hence, euthanasia is illegal based on Christian belief. Futhermore, Nimbalkar (2007) that said, in Hinduism, killing in the form of euthanasia, suicide and murder interfere with the killer souls progress toward liberation. This is based on Ahimsa tenet in Hinduism which means not to do harm. To avoid commit in act of violence against other creature, we must consider all living being are the image of our own self. Other than that, illegalization of euthanasia is because of their Dharma and Karma belief mentioned by Nimbalkar (2007). Dharma teaches them to take care of family and the elders in their community, while in Karma, everything that they do in their past life will be cycle in their life-death birth. In Hindu rules, any act of destroying other life will put their soul in reverse. The person who implements suicide will be remain trapped on the upcoming life-birth and will receive the karmic punishment.

Figure 1:Percentage distribution of population by religion, Malaysia, 2010

Figure 1 show the percentage of population based on religion in Malaysia. Based on this figure, we can conclude that euthanasia cannot be legalize in Malaysia because Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism are against it.

1.2 Euthanasia it is an act of murder as every human life should be worth its guarantee, safety and protection and human life deserves exceptional security and protection. The next reason why euthanasia should not be legalized is because every human life should be saved and protected. A human life should not be easily ended. It should be saved and protected as much as possible. Most patients who choose euthanasia are frustrated with their own life that they cannot think positively. Thus, it should not be left to the patient alone to make this decision. According to the research by Borgsteede et al. in 2007, patient who choose euthanasia think they are useless. Usually, they are uncertain to decide whether to keep on living or not and physical suffering is what they afraid of. As an instance, Hilly Bosscher, a Dutch, had died through euthanasia by asking her doctor, to prescribe her over dose of sleeping pills. The woman did so because she is severely depressed and had lost the will to live after a failed marriage and the deaths of her two sons. It is believed that a patient should get a moral support and another reason to keep on living to the end rather than let them communicate about only the pain they suffered. This is because, a person who does not undergo severe depression will not want to die (Earll,2003). It is only when they feel at a total loss that they decide to die. Another reason why euthanasia should not be legalised is that the law might be abused since it is hard to distinguish between murder and euthanasia. The built in nature relationship between doctor and patient will negatively affected with the right to assistance in committing suicide through euthanasia. Whether as a healer or a killer to the patient, a physicians role cannot be determined. The person who wants to become a doctor will never take away someone life by prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death based on the Hypocratic Oath or doctors promise. There is a case study based on case of euthanasia occured in 1998 where a doctor named Doctor Moor was charged due to his involvement in the death of George Lindell. Doctor Moor gives diamorphine to Mr. Lindell with reason to reduce the pain and not causing death. After he was released in May 1999, Doctor Moor admitted that he would not stop from doing it again. In contrary, according to John Wilkinson, 1990, there is an opinion about the doctors can prescribe a medication as long as it is consent by the patient or relatives despite the risks in causing death due to the treatment but with the intention to help reduce the pain of the patient which is known as the principle of double effect. In this case, since most people

believe in the doctor which mean any recommendation from the doctor seems the best way for them. Therefore, if euthanasia is to be legalized in Malaysia, people might be using doctor by threatening or bribing the doctor to end a person life. This will hurt doctors role as a life saver.

1.3

Euthanasia can be made legal if if the medication does not improved the patients health. In contrary, there are certain conditions at which no medication can help to improve

the patients health. No matter how expensive the medication is, sometimes it just does not work. Some patients may be used by researchers to find new cure for that certain disease that the patients may suffered from. They are being sacrifice by them as they would not know what the consequences of the treatment and medications are. Thus, euthanasia can be considered an option in distinct cases if the medication does not improved the patients health. As stated by the American Medical Associations Code of Medical Ethics a competent, adult patient, may, in advance, formulate and provide a valid consent to the withholding and withdrawing of life - support systems in the event that injury or illness renders that individual incompetent to make such a decision. (Morrow, 2009). If patient have a brain death, life sustaining treatment can be removed with condition that he is no longer alive and not only cardio - respiratory rest based on Islam according to Kasule, (n.d). Life support termination also known as passive euthanasia. (Shaw, 2006) whereas active euthanasia uses normal medicine tools such as drugs filled syringe to end patients life (Miller, Truog and Brock, 2009). Some medical professional think that to withdraw treatment and let patient to die is can be accepted but it is not tolerable to use euthanasia on any patients. (Shaw, 2006) According to research done by Miller, Truog and Brock (2009), killing is normally understood as unjustified life withdrawing in medical context, even some of us might recognize that in other terms,in self defense for instance, killing can be acceptable. They also mention that the term suicide can be oppose as neither the patients have the ability to cause his own death directly nor two patients searching each other help to commit suicide.

Figure 2 : Percentage who think euthanasia should definitely or probably be allowed by law for those who are Figure 2 shows the percentage who think euthanasia should definitely or probably be allowed by law for those who are. It shows that 86% relatives agree to do euthanasia because of incurable sickness, where life support machine never expected to regain consciousness whereas, 12% of patients would ask for euthanasia, but for the wrong reason that they are simply tired to live and want to die. This also shows that most people especially the relatives to patients today, prefer to have euthanasia to end the lifes of their loved ones. Of course, most caregivers do not dare to see their loved one suffering from disease. Some might consider euthanasia, so that both patient and the caregivers can have a better life. Euthanasia should be taken for consideration as it can help to ease the burden of both sides, the patient and the caregiver. As for the patient side, euthanasia can help to let them free from suffering the disease and as for the caregiver side, there many can be ease. For example, their time and cost for taking care of their beloved ones. It may be hard to be accepted in reality but changes are

hard to be accepted at first. As people always said time heals everything, thus time may help to heal the fact that beloved had gone. Maybe some people might not taking euthanasia as one of the option to end someones life because as human beings, we do not have the authority to take someone life. Besides, as for someone who holds strong belief in the religion no matter what religion is, we will always believe that only God has the power to take someones life.

1.4

Conclusion In a nutshell, it is illegal to perform euthanasia in Malaysia according to law and

religions since it rise many ethical issues which is still left unsolved even in the country where euthanasia is legalized. Most of the religions put the fate of life and death in the hands of God. Hence, the point of view of each religion should be taken into consideration if euthanasia is to be legalized in Malaysia. Furthermore, human life needs to be saved and protected from being harm by irresponsible person. As a human being, we can only help the patients by improving their situation or make it less painful. Euthanasia also should remain illegal because it is hard to justify whether it is a murder or euthanasia, therefore the law can be easily abused which might lead to death of innocent peoples. Despite of that, there are certain considerations for special cases where euthanasia might not be considered as murder but it should fulfil certain criteria stated by the law. Most people oppose Euthanasia because it violates the Natural law which uphold the clich of life indicate that everything in nature is designed for a purpose. Besides, it is emphasizes that human life is important and are certain that it is necessary to struggle for it in any situation because there always possibility of treatment, even for the most hopeless patients.

References Asma, MA (n.d.). Euthanasia in Malaysia: Opinions and Controversies. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/6332/1/Asma_MA.pdf Barua, A. (n.d). Buddhist Bioethics on Euthanasia Practice. The Centre of Buddhist Study, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Borgsteede, S. D. et al. (2007). Communication about euthanasia in general practice: Opinions and experiences of patients and their general practitioners. Patient Education and Counseling 66 (2007). 156-161. Emanuel, E. J. (2002). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.eutanasia.ws/hemeroteca/t316.pdf Franklin G. Miller, Robert D. Truog and Dan W. Brock ( 2009 ). Moral fictions and medical ethics. Bioethics, 24, 453 460. Kasule Sr., O.H. (n.d). Euthanasia: Ethic-legal issues. Retrieved at March 20th ,2013 from http://www.missionislam.com/health/euthanasia.htm. Merriam-webster, (2013). Euthanasia. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/euthanasia Moffitt, H. L. (2001). Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Legal Slippery Slope. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/409026 Nimbalkar, N. (2007). Euthanasia : The Hindu Perspective. National Seminar on Bioethics. VPM's Joshi-Bedekar College, New Delhi India. Peschke, K. H. (1992). The pros and cons of euthanasia reexamined. Quarterly Irish Theological, 58(14), doi: 10.1177/002114009205800102 Peschke, K. H. et al. (1992). Irish Thoelogical Quartery: The Pros and Cons of Euthanasia Reexamined 58:14 DOI: 10.1177/002114009205800102 Rachels, J. (1975). Active and Passive Euthanasia. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/DeathandDying_TEXT/Active%2 0and%20Passive%20Euthanasia.pdf

Voultsos, P., Njau, S., & Vlachou, M. (2010). The issue of euthanasia in Greece from a legal viewpoint. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 17, 131-136. Retrieved from journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/jflm