This blog post takes an in-depth look at whether euthanasia is a right to a dignified death or a choice that could lead to a disregard for life and ethical confusion.
Euthanasia refers to the act of artificially hastening death to alleviate the suffering of patients afflicted with incurable diseases or similar conditions. As a sensitive issue concerning human life, it has been the subject of ongoing debate. Notably, the 2009 Severance Dignitas case ignited heated debate on euthanasia in South Korea. Recently, the Dignitas Clinic has gained attention in relation to euthanasia. Dignitas is a clinic that performs ‘active, voluntary euthanasia’. The terms ‘active’ and ‘voluntary’ here may be somewhat unfamiliar. Euthanasia takes various forms, and distinguishing these forms is crucial. Therefore, before discussing the Dignitas Clinic, we will first explain the types of euthanasia.
Euthanasia can be broadly divided into two main categories based on the method used to bring about death. There is ‘active euthanasia,’ which directly causes death using drugs or other means, and ‘passive euthanasia,’ which hastens the natural time of death by discontinuing life-sustaining devices such as ventilators or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Additionally, euthanasia can be categorized based on the patient’s consent. Voluntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia performed when the patient freely consents to death without coercion from others. In contrast, involuntary euthanasia is performed when the patient is unable to make their own choice about life and death.
Euthanasia remains a fiercely debated topic worldwide. Recently, public opinion both domestically and internationally has become increasingly favorable toward passive and voluntary euthanasia. One survey found that 70% of domestic respondents supported passive euthanasia, and similar results exist from countries like France and New Zealand, where 70-80% of citizens support passive euthanasia. This reflects growing support for the view that the right to self-determination regarding death should be respected, and that the happiness of patients and their guardians should not be sacrificed due to futile life-sustaining treatment. However, active euthanasia, which takes away the remaining life, and involuntary euthanasia, which risks being imposed against one’s will, remain prohibited in many countries. This is interpreted as being due to the potential for medical misjudgment, the possibility of abuse of good intentions, and the risk of reinforcing a culture that devalues life.
Regarding passive euthanasia or death with dignity, the positions of proponents and opponents are sharply divided. Proponents argue that individuals possess rights over their own bodies, lives, and deaths, and that euthanasia, encompassing the right to choose one’s own death, is distinct from murder. They contend that discontinuing futile life-sustaining treatment and allowing death to occur naturally avoids ethical problems, reduces the economic burden on patients and caregivers, and safeguards their right to happiness. Opponents present counterarguments based on the fundamental principle of the dignity of human life, as well as the potential for misdiagnosis and the risk of abuse or misuse. They also express concern that if discussions about dignified death or discontinuing futile life-sustaining treatment spread, an external factor like economic circumstances could intervene, creating a societal atmosphere where patients might be pushed toward death.
Since the goal of happiness in life and the absolute value of life cannot be prioritized over one another, it is difficult to adhere strictly to a single position on the euthanasia issue. However, a strong opposition stance can be taken against active euthanasia. This is because it constitutes an act of forcibly depriving someone of their remaining life, which can be viewed as a form of homicide. Active euthanasia cannot avoid ethical issues, as it involves an artificial death rather than a natural one. Voluntary active euthanasia is akin to suicide, while non-voluntary active euthanasia is akin to homicide; both are ethically and socially difficult to accept.
In this context, recent reports about Switzerland’s Dignitas hospital have caused significant shock. Dignitas is a specialized euthanasia support hospital in Switzerland, established to help terminally ill or incurable patients end their lives with dignity. The name Dignitas originates from the Latin word ‘dignity,’ reflecting its purpose of assisting those facing death to conclude their lives with dignity. This hospital assists patients seeking euthanasia by prescribing a lethal dose of poison, a practice known as ‘assisted suicide’. It is essentially active euthanasia involving medical intervention and is legally grounded. The legal basis for euthanasia posted on the hospital’s website is Article 115 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which states:
“Whoever, for selfish motives, induces or assists another person to commit suicide, whether the suicide is attempted or successful, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years.”
The hospital asserts that since it assists suicide without selfish motives, there are no legal issues. The number of people choosing euthanasia at Dignitas increases annually; in 2011, 144 individuals underwent euthanasia there, and the cumulative total has already surpassed one thousand. To undergo euthanasia, one must have a doctor’s confirmation of incurability, possess the capacity to make the decision to die oneself, and pay the hospital an admission fee and annual membership fee.
At Dignitas, a doctor’s opinion that the patient’s condition is incurable is effectively sufficient for legal suicide. This represents the most radical form of euthanasia, and the fact that it is even permitted for foreigners has sparked significant global controversy. One can understand how difficult it is for terminally ill patients facing death to endure physical suffering and desperate circumstances. However, active euthanasia is an act of abandoning even the remaining life. From an existentialist perspective, death is inevitable and must be accepted with humility. If meaningless life-prolonging treatment contradicts the essence of death, then abandoning even the remaining life through active euthanasia at Dignitas Hospital could be an even greater contradiction. When considering the value inherent in life, this issue extends beyond the personal and can lead to serious societal problems. For instance, the notion that one can abandon their remaining life based on personal choice could foster a culture that devalues life. Furthermore, the fact that many individuals who have achieved social success visit Dignitas suggests the potential for a Werther effect, or copycat suicides. Furthermore, the risk of misdiagnosis remains, and there is also the danger of the system being abused, such as attempting suicide with forged doctor’s opinions.
No matter how painful it may be, the value of life is incomparable to anything else. It is necessary to reflect on the value of life at a personal level and understand the tragic consequences that giving up on life can bring. Making sound judgments can be difficult amidst extreme suffering, so creating an environment that supports this is crucial. If medical assistance alleviates physical and mental suffering, and a social atmosphere is fostered that allows for a dignified, non-suicidal conclusion to life, no one would seek to resolve their fear of death through such an extreme choice.
There’s a saying: ‘Even if you roll in dog shit, this world is better.’ This means that no matter how difficult life is, life itself is an incomparable happiness compared to death and is a value that must be protected. Those who choose euthanasia assert the ‘right to die,’ directly challenging this proverb and advocating for euthanasia. Life has meaning in and of itself, and life is only given once.
