(This essay won the second prize for the Dharam S. Hinduja essay writing competition among faculty members of University of Mumbai. More than the prize, I am happy that the issue has been appreciated)
~ 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~
Malcolm Muggeridge
The smooth-sounding long word ‘Euthanasia’ conceals within it the jeopardy of the end of social relationships, behind a hideous veil of compassion. A popular definition of euthanasia which has been adopted by Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia (HOPE) is as follows: ‘Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a person whose life is considered not to be worth living.’ A well-accepted term for euthanasia is “mercy-killing”, which could be of two types: “voluntary euthanasia”—which in other words means “assisted suicide”—whereby the death happens at the overt request of the patient and “involuntary euthanasia” in which the procedure for death takes place due to someone else’s decision since the patient is incapable to give consent. It is fundamental to understand that euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, is intentional killing. The former case is akin to suicide and the latter to murder.
I would argue my case against euthanasia using a three-fold premise. Firstly, by understanding the issue from a philosophical perspective, to realise what ‘value’ life holds and whether it can be subjected to less than one’s mere will to put it off. Secondly, by analysing that which euthanasia aims to mitigate, or rather increase: fear, and thirdly, by discussing the thin line that differentiates between right to life and right to take one’s own life. Finally, I would strongly propound against legalising euthanasia by proposing the alternative: modern palliative care.
Let us take a philosophical understanding of life. Does it have an intrinsic or extrinsic value? The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. Extrinsic value means that it does not have value in itself but derives it from something else. The advocates of euthanasia actually say that life has an extrinsic value, which means life has only value if there is no suffering. However, such a definition makes life too narrow to live. The proponents of euthanasia decide the worthiness of life depending on physical fitness. What is the guarantee that the idea of physical pain will not change in due course of time? What today they advocate for vegetative state, will they not justify for any physical disability, citing the argument that it is better for such people to die rather than to live a life of handicap? Hence, in my opinion, life always has an intrinsic value—a value that is not caused because of something else. Therefore, it is wrong to erase out this life just because it does not live up to the expectation of the world. I refuse to believe that the value of my life is dependent on external factors.
Secondly, the ghost of fear preoccupies the minds of supporters of euthanasia. What they fear, and possibly this is the only reason why they vouch for such a dastardly act as euthanasia, is that they might have to undergo (or let their loved ones undergo) the dreadfulness of a sorrowful, painful, and tormenting end. However, it is an incoherent fear, since it is a fear of dependence. In the post modern culture, we want to write our own script and determine our own exit, and hence, this fear. Human society was always interdependent, and only in interdependence did we find joy, peace, and love. But in the race to become “self-sufficient” in this selfish world, where values of individualism dominate, such fears will certainly exist. The only solution for this fear is to commune with the society where interdependence is the key to life. Instead of killing people out of fear, we need to love and take care of people. If euthanasia is the only solution then we would never have any Mother Teresa, who devoted her life for the dying destitute. The truth is that we all have a right to die with dignity, which includes good palliative care and pain relief. What the supporters of euthanasia are really arguing for is not the right to die with dignity, but the right to be killed. They are demanding of doctors that they become killers.
I, on the other hand, would argue that instead of eliminating fear, euthanasia creates fear. Euthanasia brings insecurity to the society because I never want to speculate whether the physician entering into my hospital room is wearing the white coat of the healer or the black hood of the executioner. In fact, it goes against the ethics of medical profession. To quote a crucial clause of the Hippocratic Oath, which every doctor takes before starting the practice, “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my judgement and ability, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them.” This is in recognition that the vocation of a doctor is to be a healer. Hence, a basic contradiction exists in euthanasia as it transforms the healer to a killer. This also demoralises the doctor-patient relationship, which has to be based purely on trust, not fear. Doctors are the instruments that bring hope of life; they are not the agents of death.
The third argument that the promoters of euthanasia put forth is the idea of human autonomy. They claim that decision making or choice is the key to any human right and no institution can deny the most fundamental human right. However, they fail to understand that all human rights are for the furtherance of development of individuals, and euthanasia just does the opposite. The notion of total personal sovereignty is absolutely a falsehood because no person decided to take birth by own free will. On the contrary, if we accept euthanasia based on the argument of autonomy or self-determination, on what basis will then be suicide unjustified? Hence, freedom has limits. We need to use freedom with restraint for the development of human life and not for its destruction.
The greatest apprehension against legalising euthanasia is that it can be easily misused citing the clause of ‘terminal illness’. Medical experts concede that it is practically not possible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. However, gradually more euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, substituting them with expressions such as “hopelessly ill,” “desperately ill,” “incurably ill,” “hopeless condition,” and “meaningless life.” Legalised euthanasia will eventually become an easy door for involuntary euthanasia. It can be altered for hidden criminal motives, especially when taking medical care incurs huge costs and when there are financial interests behind the death of a patient; thus, it may not be in the best interests of a patient. Instead, the best alternative for euthanasia already exists: modern palliative care, which has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Palliative care, also known as hospice, is physical, emotional, and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support from family and friends. Unlike euthanasia, palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as someone having a set of medical problems. When such a wonderful alternative exists, why legalise euthanasia? The intention behind those who close their eyes and hearts against this alternative is very clear. Dr. Robert Twycross, a practicing hospice doctor says to his patients: ‘Not only we will enable you to die with dignity, but we will enable you to live before you die.’ Ask yourself if it is possible to make an objective judgment and decide who is going to live and who is going to die. As far as I am concerned, such a choice is impossible, and therefore, euthanasia, which includes the necessity to make that choice, should be vehemently opposed, leave alone legalising it.
~I have experienced much pain in my life. When my pain is bad, I do not need to be told that I am burdensome. I need to hear that my life has meaning. The feeling that I may be abandoned is worse than any pain~
– Alison Davis, A person with disability
No comments:
Post a Comment