Reasons for Euthanasia

1. Unbearable pain
2. Right to commit suicide
3. People should not be forced to stay alive
1. Unbearable pain as the reason for euthanasia
Probably the major argument in favor of euthanasia is that the person involved is in
great pain. Today, advances are constantly being made in the treatment of pain and, as
they advance, the case for euthanasia/assisted-suicide is proportionally
weakened. Euthanasia advocates stress the cases of unbearable pain as reasons
for euthanasia, but then they soon include a "drugged" state. I guess that is in case
virtually no uncontrolled pain cases can be found - then they can say those people are
drugged into a no-pain state but they need to be euthanasiaed from such a state
because it is not dignified. See the opening for the slippery slope? How do you
measure "dignity"? No - it will be euthanasia "on demand". The pro-euthanasia folks
have already started down the slope. They are even now not stoping with "unbearable
pain" - they are alrady including this "drugged state" and other circumstances.
Nearly all pain can be eliminated and - in those rare cases where it can't be eliminated
- it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a national
and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain control. But
killing is not the answer to that scandal. The solution is to mandate better education of
health care professionals on these crucial issues, to expand access to health care, and
to inform patients about their rights as consumers. Everyone - whether it be a person
with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition - has the right to pain relief. With
modern advances in pain control, no patient should ever be in excruciating pain.
However, most doctors have never had a course in pain management so they're
unaware of what to do. If a patient who is under a doctor's care is in excruciating pain,
there's definitely a need to find a different doctor. But that doctor should be one who
will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient. There are board certified
specialists in pain management who will not only help alleviate physical pain but are
skilled in providing necessary support to deal with emotional suffering and depression
that often accompanies physical pain.
2. Demanding a "right to commit suicide" Probably the second most common point
pro-euthanasia people bring up is this so-called "right." But what we are talking about
is not giving a right to the person who is killed, but to the person who does the killing.
In other words, euthanasia is not about the right to die. It's about the right to kill. Euthanasia is not

about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the law and
public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intentionally end
another person's life. People do have the power to commit suicide. Suicide and
attempted suicide are not criminalized. Suicide is a tragic, individual act. Euthanasia
is not about a private act. It's about letting one person facilitate the death of another.
That is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse,
exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us.
3. Should people be forced to stay alive? No. And neither the law nor medical ethics
requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the
patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law
and practice. It would also be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when
continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound. That's
where hospice, including in-home hospice care, can be of such help. That is the time
when all efforts should be placed on making the patient's remaining time comfortable.
Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other symptoms as
well as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the
patient's loved ones.
Pro-choice arguments (for Euthanasia)

Can quickly and humanely end a patients suffering, allowing them to die with dignity.

Can help to shorten the grief and suffering of the patients loved ones.

Everyone has the right to decide how they should die.

Death is a private matter, and if you are not hurting anyone else, the state should not interfere.

Most people would have their pets put down if they were suffering this would be regarded as
kindness. Why cant the same kindness be given to humans?

Illness can take away autonomy (the ability to make choices) and dignity, leaving you with no
quality of life; euthanasia allows you to take back control in deciding to die

Keeping people alive costs a lot of money, which could be used to save other people's lives

Some Christians would support euthanasia. They might argue:

God is love. Christianity is love and compassion. Keeping someone in pain and suffering is not
loving, it is evil. Euthanasia can be the most loving action, and the best way of putting agape
love into practice.

Humans were given dominion over all living things by God (Genesis 1:28), i.e. we can choose
for ourselves.

Jesus came so that people could have life in all its fullness John 10:10: this means quality of
life. If someone has no quality of life, then euthanasia could be good.

God gave humans free will. We should be allowed to use free will to decide when our lives end.

Do to others as you would have them do to you. How would you want to be treated?

There are examples of euthanasia in the Bible - in 2 Samuel 1:9-10 Then he begged me, Come
over here and put me out of my misery, for I am in terrible pain and want to die. So I killed
him.

Thomas More, a Roman Catholic saint, wrote a book about a perfect society ('Utopia'), which
included euthanasia - people "choose to die since they cannot live but in great misery."

For a more detailed study of Euthanasia, have a look at our A level pages.
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society (EXIT) believes that faced with terminal illness, pain or a useless
existence, for which there is no cure, everyone should be able to turn to ..the mercy of a painless
death. They hope that the law will change to allow doctors to end the lives of people who have made
it clear, in writing, that this is what they want. As a safeguard, the patient should sign a request to
make this possible at least 30 day in advance.
EXIT works to change the law so people can make Advance Directives statements telling others of
the patients wishes, in case they reach a stage when they cannot speak for themselves but want to be
allowed to die.
Quality of Life is a main issue. If someone is enjoying happy relationships, can communicate, and is not
in unbearable pain, then most people would agree that euthanasia is wrong. But, if the patient cannot
communicate or is suffering so much they cannot enjoy life, then some would argue that euthanasia
might be the best option.

People have the right to die

Human beings have the right to die when and how they want to
In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to
choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need
be no further questions.
The Independent, March 2002
Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to
determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die.
Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human
rights are a bad thing.

And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry
out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. Allied to this is a firm
belief that death is the end.
Religious objections
Religious opponents disagree because they believe that the right to decide when a person dies belongs to God.
Secular objections
Secular opponents argue that whatever rights we have are limited by our obligations. The decision to die by
euthanasia will affect other people - our family and friends, and healthcare professionals - and we must balance the
consequences for them (guilt, grief, anger) against our rights.
We should also take account of our obligations to society, and balance our individual right to die against any bad
consequences that it might have for the community in general.
These bad consequences might be practical - such as makinginvoluntary euthanasia easier and so putting
vulnerable people at risk.
There is also a political and philosophical objection that says that our individual right to autonomy against the state
must be balanced against the need to make the sanctity of life an important, intrinsic, abstract value of the state.
Secular philosophers put forward a number of technical arguments, mostly based on the duty to preserve life
because it has value in itself, or the importance of regarding all human beings as ends rather than means.

Top

Other human rights imply a right to die

Without creating (or acknowledging) a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be
taken to include this right.
The right to life includes the right to die

The right to life is not a right simply to exist

The right to life is a right to life with a minimum quality and value

Death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is part of life

Dying is one of the most important events in human life

Dying can be good or bad

People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible

So they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible

If the dying process is unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten it, and thus reduce the
unpleasantness

People also have obligations - to their friends and family, to their doctors and nurses, to society in general

These obligations limit their rights

These obligations do not outweigh a person's right to refuse medical treatment that they do not want

But they do prevent a patient having any right to be killed

But even if there is a right to die, that doesn't mean that doctors have a duty to kill, so no doctor can be
forced to help the patient who wants euthanasia.
The right not to be killed
The right to life gives a person the right not to be killed if they don't want to be.
Those in favour of euthanasia will argue that respect for this right not to be killed is sufficient to protect against
misuse of euthanasia, as any doctor who kills a patient who doesn't want to die has violated that person's rights.
Opponents of euthanasia may disagree, and argue that allowing euthanasia will greatly increase the risk of people
who want to live being killed. The danger of violating the right to life is so great that we should ban euthanasia even
if it means violating the right to die.
The rights to privacy and freedom of belief include a right to die
This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to
die.
The European Convention on Human Rights gives a person the right to die

Not according to Britain's highest court.

It concluded that the right to life did not give any right to self-determination over life and death, since the
provisions of the convention were aimed at protecting and preserving life.
English law already acknowledges that people have the right to die
This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act (1961) made it legal for people to take their own lives.
Opponents of euthanasia may disagree:

The Suicide Act doesn't necessarily acknowledge a right to die;

it could simply acknowledge that you can't punish someone for succeeding at suicide

and that it's inappropriate to punish someone so distressed that they want to take their own life.
Euthanasia opponents further point out that there is a moral difference between decriminalising something, often for
practical reasons like those mentioned above, and encouraging it.

They can quite reasonably argue that the purpose of the Suicide Act is not to allow euthanasia, and support this
argument by pointing out that the Act makes it a crime to help someone commit suicide. This is true, but that
provision is really there to make it impossible to escape a murder charge by dressing the crime up as an assisted
suicide.

Top

Libertarian argument
This is a variation of the individual rights argument.

If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights then that action
is morally acceptable

In some cases, euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone involved and violates no one's rights

It is therefore morally acceptable

Objections to this argument
Opponents attack the libertarian argument specifically by claiming that there are no cases that fit the conditions
above:

people sometimes think things are in their best interests that are not morally acceptable

The arguments that euthanasia is intrinsically wrong fit in here

people are sometimes wrong about what's in their best interests

people may not realise that committing euthanasia may harm other people

euthanasia may deprive both the person who dies and others of benefits

euthanasia is not a private act - we cannot ignore any bad effects it may have on society in general

Top

Medical resources
Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources
This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority. It is included
here for completeness.
In most countries there is a shortage of health resources.
As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get speedy access to the facilities they need
for treatment.

At the same time health resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and who, for their own reasons,
would prefer not to continue living.
Allowing such people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable
resources to treat people who want to live.
Abuse of this would be prevented by only allowing the person who wanted to die to intitiate the process, and
by regulationsthat rigorously prevented abuse.
Objections to this argument
This proposal is an entirely pragmatic one; it says that we should allow euthanasia because it will allow more people
to be happy. Such arguments will not convince anyone who believes that euthanasia is wrong in principle.
Others will object because they believe that such a proposal is wide-open to abuse, and would ultimately lead
to involuntary euthanasia because of shortage of health resources.
In the end, they fear, people will be expected to commit euthanasia as soon as they become an unreasonable burden
on society.

Top

Moral rules must be universalisable

One of the commonly accepted principles in ethics, put forward by Immanuel Kant, is that only those ethical
principles that could be accepted as a universal rule (i.e. one that applied to everybody) should be accepted.
So you should only do something if you're willing for anybody to do exactly the same thing in exactly similar
circumstances, regardless of who they are.
The justification for this rule is hard to find - many people think it's just an obvious truth (philosophers call such
truths self-evident). You find variations of this idea in many faiths; for example "do unto others as you would have
them do unto you".
To put it more formally:
A rule is universalisable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey. The only rules which
are morally good are those which can be universalised.
The person in favour of euthanasia argues that giving everybody the right to have a good death through euthanasia is
acceptable as a universal principle, and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable.
This alone does not justify euthanasia
This is sound, but is not a full justification.

If a person wants to be allowed to commit euthanasia, it would clearly be inconsistent for them to say that they didn't
think it should be allowed for other people.
But the principle of universalisability doesn't actually provide any positive justification for anything - genuine moral
rules must be universalisable, but universalisability is not enough to say that a rule is a satisfactory moral rule.
Universalisability is therefore only a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition for a rule to be a morally good
rule.
So, other than showing that one pre-condition is met, universalisibility doesn't advance the case for euthanasia at all.
How similar can situations be?
Every case is different in some respect, so anyone who is inclined to argue about it can argue about whether the
particular differences are sufficent to make this case an exception to the rule.
Universal exceptions to universal rules
Oddly enough, the law of universalisability allows for there to be exceptions - as long as the exceptions are
themselves universalisable. So you could have a universal rule allowing voluntary euthanasia and universalise an
exception for people who were less than 18 years old.

Top

Euthanasia happens anyway

Euthanasia happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly
Sounds a bit like "murder happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly".
When you put it like that, the argument sounds very feeble indeed.
But it is one that is used a lot in discussion, and particularly in politics or round the table in the pub or the canteen.
People say things like "we can't control drugs so we'd better legalise them", or "if we don't make abortion legal so
that people can have it done in hospital, people will die from backstreet abortions".
What lies behind it is Utilitarianism: the belief that moral rules should be designed to produce the greatest
happiness of the greatest number of people.
If you accept this as the basis for your ethical code (and it's the basis of many people's ethics), then the arguments
above are perfectly sensible.
If you don't accept this principle, but believe that certain things are wrong regardless of what effect they have on
total human happiness, then you will probably regard this argument as cynical and wrong.

A utilitarian argument for euthanasia

From a utilitarian viewpoint, justifying euthanasia is a question of showing that allowing people to have a good
death, at a time of their own choosing, will make them happier than the pain from their illness, the loss of dignity
and the distress of anticipating a slow, painful death. Someone who wants euthanasia will have already made this
comparison for themselves.
But utilitarianism deals with the total human happiness, not just that of the patient, so that even euthanasia
opponents who agree with utilitarianism in principle can claim that the negative effects on those around the patient family, friends and medical staff - would outweigh the benefit to the patient.
It is hard to measure happiness objectively, but one way to test this argument would be to speak to the families and
carers of people who had committed assisted suicide.
Opponents can also argue that the net effect on the whole of society will be a decrease in happiness. The only way to
approach this would be to look at countries where euthanasia is legal. However, as no two countries are alike, it
seems impossible to extricate the happiness or unhappiness resulting from legal assisted suicide, from any happiness
or unhappiness from other sources.
Even if you agree with the utilitarian argument, you then have to deal with the arguments that suggest that
euthanasia can't be properly regulated.

Top

Is death a bad thing?

Why ask this question?
If death is not a bad thing then many of the objections to euthanasia vanish.
If we put aside the idea that death is always a bad thing, we are able to consider whether
death may actually sometimes be a good thing.
This makes it much easier to consider the issue of euthanasia from the viewpoint of
someone who wants euthanasia.
Why is death a bad thing?
We tend to regard death as a bad thing for one or more of these reasons:

because human life is intrinsically valuable

because life and death are God's business with which we shouldn't interfere

because most people don't want to die

because it violates our autonomy in a drastic way

The first two reasons form key points in the arguments against euthanasia, but only if
you accept that they are true.
The last two reasons why death is a bad thing are not absolute; if a person wants to die,
then neither of those reasons can be used to say that they would be wrong to undergo
euthanasia.
People don't usually want to die
People are usually eager to avoid death because they value being alive, because they have
many things they wish to do, and experiences they wish to have.
Obviously, this is not the case with a patient who wishes to die - and proper regulation will
weed out people who do not really want to die, but are asking for other reasons.
Violation of autonomy
Another reason why death is seen as a bad thing is that it's the worst possible violation of
the the wishes of the person who does not want to die (or, to use philosophical language, a
violation of their autonomy).
In the case of someone who does want to die, this objection disappears.
Being dead, versus not having been born
Some people say that being dead is no different from not having been born yet, and nobody
makes a fuss about the bad time they had before they were born.
There is a big difference - even though being dead will be no different as an experience from
the experience of not having yet been born.
The idea is that death hurts people because it stops them having more of the things that
they want, and could have if they continued to live.
Someone who makes a request for euthanasia is likely to have a bad quality of life (or a bad
prognosis, even if they are not yet suffering much) and the knowledge that this will only get
worse. If that is the case, death will not deprive them of an otherwise pleasant existence.
Of course, most patients will still be leaving behind some things that are good: for example,
loved ones and things they enjoy. Asking for death does not necessarily mean that they
have nothing to live for: only that the patient has decided that after a certain point, the pain
outweighs the good things.