Visualize yourself lying lifelessly on a bed in the middle of a dank, dark hospital room. Isolated, lonely with nothing but your thoughts to reflect on. Tubes protruding out of yours arms, infiltrating your aching body. You can’t move, can’t speak but can feel the pain, so much endless pain. No happiness, no liberty, no solutions. This is no way how anyone’s life should be. Would you like to live this way? Would you want your loved ones living like this? Euthanasia, comes from the Greek word meaning “good death”, and is the practice of assisted suicide with the purpose of relieving pain and agony.
The people who opt for euthanasia suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia has been the subject of much moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human rights debate in Australia. At the core of this debate is how to resolve opposing values being, peoples desire to choose to die with dignity when suffering, and the need to maintain the explicit right to life for every person. In parts of Australia there have been numerous legislative attempts made to legalize euthanasia.
However, currently, it still remains unlawful. But why is this the case? I personally believe that this is extremely absurd to strip the freedom off those who are in need of relief. Firstly, I believe that we all have the explicit and necessary right to choose and thus should have the liberty to make decisions about having euthanasia. Everything in life is surrounded by this explicit right, from the simple things like what you will have to eat for lunch to what you will believe, what your opinions are and what you want to do with your life.
This very right is the basis of our society. No one can question our right to free will. Our right to choose is vital and concerns all the foundations of “human life”, which includes the right to choose how you die. For example, someone who is suffering from a terminal illness and is currently under a significant amount of pain may want to die with dignity, which is of course his right to do so. To refute against this desire is to deny them their personal independence, which in turn, infringes his humanity.
This person may elect euthanasia, as a way out of this never ending nightmare, and this option should certainly be available to them. Nothing changes when the right to choose meets euthanasia, as equally as they made choices when faced with circumstances in life this is their right to choose how they die. It simply just cannot be questioned should they choose to act on it. Furthermore, I believe that euthanasia is certainly not immoral. If it were immoral, then it would have to oppose ethical principles or standards.
The advocates against euthanasia suggest that it is immoral because life must be conserved and protected. The continuation of life is, however, is not a decision that is made by the doctors but rather the self-determined choice of the person. For example, something that invades somebody’s right to life is murder, as it removes the element of choice in the person’s death. When it is the person who chooses how to die, there is no violation.
If a doctor were to refuse a person to their right to die when under severe pain and torment is essentially compelling them to live a life without what they believe is their liberty, a life of travail and ultimately death. The only humane, rational and compassionate choice is to allow a terminally ill individual to end their life as the current preventions require a person with great physical and/or mental suffering to continue to endure their suffering against their wishes, which just cannot be right.
While the intentions may be good, no person has the right to force another person to live a life of suffering, and thus it is immoral as it eliminates their right to choose. Euthanasia facilitates the choice making for someone’s life and is certainly the compassionate and sympathetic decision with respects to that person’s dignity. Finally, euthanasia doesn’t reduce a person’s life. As stated earlier many arguments opposing euthanasia are based on the premise that the patient’s life should be preserved because of the possibility of their recovery.
However in nearly all of these circumstances, the patients were in intense agony and are using euthanasia to end the misery where they would have had near impossible likelihood of recovery. It is because the numbers are so heavily suggestive of euthanasia being an alternative for terminally ill patients in terrible agony that it must be allowed as an option to end their suffering. Now, this isn’t to say that miracle recoveries never happen. But for the vast majority of patients, such a recovery is less likely than winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning in the same afternoon.
So to conclude, I firmly believe that euthanasia should be legalized. From personal experience, I have come to understand the strains and grief of the issue when my grandfather was suffering from terminal thyroid cancer. He told me how painful everyday was for him, with constant flows of morphine giving him temporary relief. On top of this the constant thought that eventually this illness would kill him, no matter what happens. He was helpless and there was nothing we could do for him while he suffered. My grandfather and my family shouldn’t have had to endure through this nightmare.
I know that my grandfather didn’t want to live like this, nobody does. Why wouldn’t you want to help end the anguish? Are you so selfish so that you would keep them in pain just for your benefit? I hope not. The ambitions of the health and medical institutions should remain one of saving lives but this should not be at the cost of compassion for the terminally ill and their right to choose how to end their life and die with dignity. So help legalise euthanasia, so we can make a difference for those in need and give them the choice.
