Euthanasia

After listening to the debate between the ex-members of the Singapore debating society and the future members of the Singapore debating society, on euthanasia, I felt very inspired to write about my views on euthanasia . The debaters were extremely persuasive and managed to appeal to my logic and emotion. Throughout the debate, I was constantly being persuaded from the opposition to the proposition, and vice versa . I feel that euthanasia is an extremely difficult subject to tackle for we would never know how it feels like to have terminal illnesses or to go into a coma state . However, based on my own values and beliefs I do not support euthanasia unless under certain circumstances.

My Reflection – Debate on Euthanasia

The word euthanasia comes from two Greek words oeuo and thanatos, meaning “good death”. It refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner or a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering. Euthanasia is sometimes called a form of “mercy killing’ to help the severely ill out of their misery.

Debates about the ethics of euthanasia date from ancient Greece and Rome. Proponents of euthanasia believe it is everyone’s right to die at a time and in a manner of their own choice when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to the bitter end. Opponents consider euthanasia the equivalent of murder and fear that vulnerable individuals may be coerced into assisted suicide to ease the financial burden of caring for them. Some religious opponents argue that only God may bestow life and only God may decide when a life is ready to end. Proponents for euthanasia seek to end pain for those who wish to die while opponents argue that euthanasia is a rejection of life.

While in a debate, it is possible for the judges to decide whether the proposition or opposition of the motion deserves to be the winning team based on how well they delivered their case, in real life, it is a tough call for politicians, law makers, doctors and the individuals who are directly involved. Individuals’ values are often influenced by their families, the society they live in or their religion. The religious perspective on euthanasia, while valid, might not be taken seriously by those who have no spiritual life. Each medical condition is different and every individual’s experience may differ. It is therefore difficult to come to a universal agreement and the debate of euthanasia will never reach a solid answer.

While I am in the same camp as the proponent for euthanasia, I would like to make a distinction between Voluntary euthanasia and Involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when terminally-ill persons decide that they have had enough and wish to die with dignity as in the case of Perth quadriplegic Christian Rossiter who recently won a landmark legal case giving him the right to starve himself to death. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so, as in the case of Teri Schiavo. Teri’s husband, expressing it was Teri’s wish not to live in a vegetable state, did what he believed was what she would want. Her parents operating on hope of a miracle, and understandably not wanting to lose their daughter, were doing what they thought were in her best interest. Taking sides in such a tragic situation would be a nightmare for anyone with no good choice. It is an extremely hard decision and only those involved will know if they have made the right choice. However, one should always guard against the danger when a person is pressured to die against his will. Legalizing Involuntary euthanasia could lead to abuse because it involves the taking of life which is not yours to take.

The second distinction is between active and passive method of euthanasia. Active methods of euthanasia involve lethal injection and the withholding of food and fluids which I am less inclined to support. Passive methods of euthanasia are removal of life support and removal of necessary medicine.

I feel that a reasonable approach to the question of euthanasia involves four considerations. First, one should decide that the circumstances are appropriate. Questions such as; is the patient suffering terribly, is he or she capable of participating in this decision, does the family believe in euthanasia, should be carefully considered before a decision is reached on euthanasia. The second consideration is what regulations are feasible. Ideally, at least three people must be involved in the decision – the patient and the next of kin and the doctor. Once again, this decision must be made only when the circumstances are appropriate. Third, the individual’s right to choose should not be overlooked. Because it is his or her own life, the patient should have full control over its length and quality. Living wills that allow passive euthanasia are essential. They allow the patient to choose beforehand the right not to be put on life support when it is needed, which avoids unnecessary prolonging of life. The Advance Medical Directive (AMD) Act allows Singaporeans to make an Advance Medical Directive (AMD). An AMD is a legal document that you sign in advance to inform the doctor treating you (in the event you become terminally ill and unconscious) that you do not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment used to prolong your life. Making an AMD is a voluntary decision. It is entirely up to you whether you wish to make an AMD. A final consideration is the financial and emotional benefits of euthanasia. Patients on life support not only cause unnecessary expenses, but also emotional burden on the family. The family does not want to see their own relative in pain and suffering for a long period of time, thus passive euthanasia may be the right decision.

“Death” is a taboo word in Asian society, but there is a need for us to have more “die-logues” about death, and not sweep it under the carpet. We need to overcome taboos about death and communicate better, both among ourselves as well as between doctors and their patients. Lastly, I would like to share the account of a reader who wrote to Zai bao with her views on euthanasia. Her parents who are in their late 80s have been completely bed ridden after suffering from stroke. She described them as merely “san-deng citizens”: “deng-chi; deng-shui; deng-si” (“三等公民，“等吃”，“等睡”，“等死””). She vowed not to become a “san-deng citizen” like her parents and instructed her children that should she suffer a stroke in the future resulting in a completely bedridden incapacitated state, “please do not save me; I would rather die than to suffer being alive”(“千万不要救我, 我宁愿死也不愿活受罪”). She hoped that her letter would lead to more discussion on the dying process and help society shape its attitude towards issues like euthanasia. Singaporeans may or may not be ready for euthanasia. However, an ageing population will throw up many more human stories of agony and suffering. Obviously, properly cared for, many sick and disabled people can live worthwhile lives. But for some, long terminal illnesses can be horrific, even in spite of good hospice care and euthanasia may be the only option.