This blog post examines the ethical debate surrounding euthanasia to end the suffering of terminally ill patients and the balance with the sanctity of life.
Consider this hypothetical situation. A member of your family has been diagnosed with a terminal illness. He suffers immense pain daily, and current medical technology offers no possibility of cure. The family becomes deeply conflicted, questioning whether prolonging his life holds any meaning. They wrestle with whether to keep him trapped in constant agony or if it is right to help him end his life peacefully. At this moment, we confront a profound ethical dilemma concerning life, dignity, and when humans have the right to decide death. Euthanasia, the act of ending a life tormented by incurable illness, has been at the center of debate worldwide for decades.
While euthanasia offers relief from suffering, it is also the deliberate termination of human life. The term ‘euthanasia’ originates from the Greek ‘ευθανασία’, meaning a beautiful death. Euthanasia refers to the act of ending life to alleviate suffering in situations where treatment is deemed futile due to conditions like terminal illness, and is often known as death with dignity.
Euthanasia can be categorized into various types based on the patient’s consent and the method of implementation. First, there is ‘voluntary euthanasia,’ performed when the patient consents to their own death, and ‘involuntary euthanasia,’ carried out without the patient’s consent. Voluntary euthanasia is performed only when the patient makes the decision themselves and is considered more ethically permissible as it respects the patient’s wishes. In contrast, involuntary euthanasia involves ending a life based on another person’s decision when the patient is incapable of making decisions, and it is not permitted in many countries due to ethical concerns.
Furthermore, euthanasia is divided into ‘active euthanasia’ and ‘passive euthanasia’ based on the method used to cause death. Active euthanasia involves directly causing the patient’s death by administering lethal substances or poisons. This is the most controversial method in euthanasia debates and is legally permitted only in a few countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands. For example, in the Netherlands, a physician can actively perform euthanasia if the patient is experiencing extreme suffering and has clearly consented to death. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involves discontinuing standard life-sustaining treatments or devices, allowing the patient to die naturally. While this method is relatively less controversial because it can reduce the patient’s suffering, it remains a difficult choice from the perspectives of medical ethics and the family.
The legalization of euthanasia has been debated for a long time. While some countries have legalized voluntary euthanasia, the debate over its legalization remains heated. Proponents argue that euthanasia provides a peaceful death for patients suffering extreme pain, asserting it is an act that respects human dignity. Conversely, I oppose the legalization of euthanasia. Euthanasia is an act that devalues human life; artificially ending life under the pretext of alleviating suffering ultimately disregards the value of life itself.
First, euthanasia risks fostering an attitude that treats life as an object and overlooks its preciousness. Humans are granted the opportunity of life from birth, and death is a natural process that cannot be artificially determined. Humans have no right to intentionally take another human life. Even if a patient is in extreme pain, striving to alleviate that pain medically to the greatest extent possible is a fundamental human ethical duty and the role of medicine. In fact, doctors are constantly developing various methods to alleviate suffering, and they argue that these treatments can be a more humane solution than euthanasia. Euthanasia is merely the easiest way to quickly end human life, and relying on it risks fostering a disregard for human life.
On the other hand, while the voluntariness of euthanasia is often emphasized, in reality, patients are often emotionally and psychologically very vulnerable. Economic burdens and psychological pressure can easily lead them to pessimistic choices, and they may voluntarily choose euthanasia feeling they have become a burden to their family. However, in reality, patients often crave support and comfort from their loved ones more than they truly desire death. If families demonstrate understanding of the patient’s suffering and show their commitment to the patient’s recovery, the patient can regain hope for life and think less about death. Therefore, it is paramount for those around the patient to provide support and comfort, helping them rediscover meaning and purpose in life.
Ending a patient’s life is not the only solution. A doctor’s duty is not to kill people, but to ‘kill’ the pain. Proposing euthanasia disregards advances in medical technology and medical achievements. Granting a patient the right to die also grants the doctor the right to decide when to die. If the removal of life-sustaining devices or the refusal to care for patients increases, this would constitute another instance of disregarding life. Modern medicine continues to advance, and through this progress, even diseases once considered incurable are seeing new treatments emerge. For example, in the case of cerebral hemorrhage patients, twenty years ago, those in critical condition had almost no chance of recovery. Now, however, due to advances in medical equipment and surgical techniques, many cases of recovery are being reported. Thus, even for diseases currently difficult to treat, the possibility of finding a solution in the future remains high. Ending suffering lies not in death, but in appropriate treatment and patient support.
Currently, only a few countries, such as the United States, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, have legalized voluntary euthanasia. However, if euthanasia becomes legal in more countries, numerous ethical problems will arise. For instance, some doctors might prioritize cost reduction over treatment effectiveness, choosing to alleviate patient suffering. This could ultimately lead to irresponsible euthanasia practices, potentially resulting in lives being ended based solely on family decisions without the patient’s consent. Cases where the value of human life is devalued and treated irresponsibly through euthanasia would increase.
Therefore, we must guard against the legalization of euthanasia and provide suffering patients with opportunities to live. Rather than performing euthanasia, we should seek diverse treatments to alleviate patients’ pain and help them spend their remaining time meaningfully with their families. Life possesses inherent dignity, and artificially ending it is a forbidden territory humanity must not challenge.
