You are on page 1of 8

Possibly the first in the history of the Congress of the Philippines, a voluntary euthanasia or

mercy killing and living will-related proposal known as Senate Bill No. 1887 or the Natural
Death Act was filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. The bill seeks to recognize the
fundamental right of adult persons to decide their own health care, including the decision to
have life-sustaining treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition or
permanent unconscious condition.
Over the past two decades, an end-of-life policy unfolded quietly in some parts of the world. In
the US, the Death With Dignity Act (1994) in Oregon allows doctors to write legal prescriptions
for terminally ill patients who want to control the time and place of their death. To qualify under
the law, the patient should be fully conscious and able to administer his own overdose. In
Europe, Belgium is set to be the second country after The Netherlands to allow terminally ill
children over 12 years old facing unbearable physical suffering and repeatedly makes the request
to be officially killed. Belgium and Switzerland have legalized euthanasia for many years but
only for people over the age of 18. The Netherlands have legalized euthanasia for adults and
children over 12 years for the past twelve years.

For something to be immoral, it would have to violate moral laws or norms. The argument of
anti-euthanasia proponents is that euthanasia is immoral because life must be preserved and
protected. The preservation of life is, however, subject to the self-determined choice of the
person and not the choice of the physician. As an example, murder infringes on a persons right
to life by taking away the element of choice in the persons death. No infringement is done when
it is the person who chooses how to die. For a physician to deny the person his right to die when
under intense pain and suffering is effectively forcing them to live a life without what they believe
is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual death (in the case of terminally ill patients). While
the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person to live a life of
suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose. Euthanasia facilitates the
choice making it in fact the compassionate choice and sympathetic to that persons dignity. It is
also important to note that those that argue to preserve life despite the patient being terminally
ill and in extreme pain are usually not the patients themselves and therefore removed from the
consequences of the decision.

It frees up hospital beds and resources

YES: Terminally ill patients, or those in a permanent vegetative state, can take up valuable hospital beds
for those who do want to get better. If they do not want to live, then they should not be allowed to take the
beds and care of those that do.

Long term palliative care for the terminally ill is a huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources.
Why waste these precious resources on someone who has expressed a desire to die, when they could be
improving the life of someone who wants to live?
In addition, these resources could be re-allocated to further the research of the specific disease the
patient is suffering in order to allow future generations to either not have the disease or increase the
quality level of care for future patients of this disease by alleviating the symptoms of the disease at the
very least.
In addition, if the patient is an organ donator and the organs are healthy, it may save up several lives
which are ultimately invaluable.
working in the care system with people with dementia i have to say in many cases its cruel to keep them
alive, we are kinder to our pets when so ill. This is an awful disease which takes any quality of life away,
One lady i know has been bed ridden for 5 years unable to communicate , move her limbs or anything if
the nazis had done this to people it would be a war crime. This is not about god or any other belief its
about common sense. Everyone should have the right to say while they are still of good mind if they get
What i see every day is slow often distressing painful deaths which is no more than cruelty,we really have
to change the way we think
NO: Just because beds in hospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die! Some can
be cared for at home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would
we draw the line? Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of
their lives anyway? I think that to describe palliative care as a "huge and ultimately wasteful drain on
medical resources" is rather harsh! Im not sure that families of the terminally ill would agree with you

It ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill

YES: Terminally ill means terminally ill. This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens,
will die eventually regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy. This
time and money could be used to help others or cure others who aren't mortally wounded or diseased.
The rebuttal presupposes that an individual needs to wait for a hypothetical existence of a treatment
being developed on an assumption that decisions that are finalized is not a justification for terminating a
patient's life at one's explicit consent. If decisions made in your life were to be stagnated each and every
time in order for an opportunity to arise everytime, the basis for this principle would not be a good one at
the very least.
Wait one day, wait one week, wait one month, we'll stay back and see. An indecisiveness for something
which might not exist within one's lifetime would make a claim for which things ought to be reversible or
decisions ought to be remade in order for things to be "controlled" in a manner. In this respect, of the
practice of "Euthanasia", death is the ultimate goal of avoidance and thus a finalized decision of upholding

pain until the very last minute of life in respect to waiting for a treatment outweighs the ultimate outcome
of death. The opposition makes a claim that reversibility of a decision that may be regretted later due to it
being finalized is better on these grounds, however, if life was controllable in all aspects and under all
possible circumstances, we were able to scroll back on our decisions, what meaningful would arise out of
the circumstances for which our decisions are made on? What would the product of our actions, time and
energy be? Aren't these decisions philosophically what identify us as who we are even to the extent of a
life or death situation? Also, even if a cure was possible, what complications will arise thereafter? What if
the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has already lived a long healthy life? It cannot be
justified to deem that waiting for something which might or might not exist in a future to occur outweighs
the prospect of pain. Wait for a miracle "cure", wait for a revolutionary science "discovery" to solve our
problems, wait for a technological "innovation"...this line of thought may be wise in some situations but not
necessarily in the case of Euthanasia.
NO: The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts the
possibility of new treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.

It relieves suffering
YES: If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind
of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms
often have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation. It is not as if they are
really living during this time; they are merely waiting to die. They should have the right to avoid this kind
of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way.
Appeal to "naturalism" is a very bad argument. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid
having rain fall on us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to
live a civilized life where we do not simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the "natural
conclusion" of our actions. Suffering may a part of the human condition and it can be argued to be useful
in preventing us from self-destructive habits, physical dismemberment or physiological damage due to
negligence of the body, etc. However, does that justify that we ought to endure a pointless pain just
because it must be part of life's experience? Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we should start
treating others unfairly, or just because sex is a part of the human experience, that we have an obligation
to perform intercourse. Also, if an argument of biological existence is made, then why is it limited to
humans in the treatment of this manner? What is the difference between existence and living? Do people
want to live in a state where they cannot progress, breathe, talk, hear, see, suffer from paralysis and
slowly die? People do want to live, and merely existing is not enough. If we just had to exist, then why do
we need a spectrum of other human experiences? Why do not we just limit ourselves to sleep, eat,
reproduce, etc? There is more to life than existing in such a state.
NO: There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life's
experience. Also medication can be improved to help a person's quality of life and make their deaths as

humane as possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are still biologically
existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its natural conclusion.
i think that it is our fate and nothing happens in theis world just like that for no reason. Everything in this
world happen for a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she may not realise it.
You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good thing for him
or her ?? Bu toyu never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree that murder is
something really bad and is not allowed so how come killing a person is the right thing?? Even if that
I will say that life is something complicated. It is not something that we could ever realise and understand
100 percent but each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone would die i definitly
don't have the choice to choose whether to kill that person or not even if he or she is suffering. Maybe yes
a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering and have a relaxed life but sometimes and mostly always
things don't always turn out to be exactly like what we want. So I think it depends on how a person
believes in God if he or she have faith in God then they will know that this is the will of God and will take
it. We can't say that there is a life with no suffering each and every person in his life have suffered in their
life but it is how you deal with them that matters and not to run away because you're afraid to face them
or afraid that you would suffer because they alwaus say that you will always face your biggest fears in
your life. So i would never kill a person and take the blame for it my entire life as i might someday sit
alone and ask myself a question, did i kill my mother??

Right to choose
YES: Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by
the fact that suicide is legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives
Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime.
Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out
decisions about themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path,
where they live, whether to bear children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide
for themselves whether they die in a hospital or in their own home? Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better
qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off dead or alive? Their disease makes them so
crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. A quote from The Independent in March 2002 stated that So
long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further
questions [[ The Independent" Editiorial Make euthansia available for those who can choose it Accessed
03.09]]. Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary restraints on human rights are
strongly discouraged.
The opposition makes an arguement of inclination. However, it ought to be rejected that people, intuitions
or legal entities should advocate the death of an individual. The life an individual rests in the
considerations of the consequences of an individual's actions. If we deny them this right, we make a claim

that we own their life. We own the product of their time, energy and utility. This is something we must
never fall into. Although it may be said from a financial sense, things aren't good; we do attempt to put
human life in an invaluable scale. It may be said that human beings are precious for various reasons, but
the value of an individual's life can never be determined by the state, another individual or entity. Even
though life insurances are in place, the individual's self-assigned worth is what gives the individual its own
worth for its very own existence.
NO: The right to choose is not something which our legal system has "accepted" we all have. This is far
from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable
offence it is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the
general opinion of society.
Furthermore the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Diane Pretty that a person does
not has a recognised right to die as stated in this quote: "No right to die, whether at the hands of a third
person or with the assistance of a public authority could be derived." [[ BBC Online News "British woman
denied right to die"
Unfortunately giving any sort of right to chose also denies a right to choose for others. If Euthanasia is
allowed then people who are terminally ill, critically injured or simply old may well feel compelled to
choose and option they dont really want to take. If Euthanasia is allowed in some cases these people
whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a lot of money may well feel that they are not worth
the cost of keeping them alive. This is not something we would want anyone to feel as in essence it takes
away their freedom of choice on the matter.

Relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate beyond
YES: A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste away,
appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer
recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs,
having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Those suffering with Huntingtons Disease
develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational thought and poor concentration. Involuntary
movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also
occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a
shadow of their former self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a
mother, father, brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last
NO: Even if their relatives may be suffering from watching their loved one's condition detiriorate, they
have no right to either decide or put pressure on a person to end their own life because of their own
sufffering. Just as it may be the individuals right to die it is also the right of the individuals right to "rage
against the dieing of the light" with their support of their family so to speak.

While it may be an 'agony to watch a loved one deteriorate' many will also want to spend as long as
possible with their loved ones, and more than likely a family will be split on the matter meaning that the
views of the family would have to have no impact on the matter.

It reduces the spread of diseases

When a person is sick, there a chance that a contagious agent exists within the host. The longer the
duration that the individual is kept alive, it may increase the risk of others being affected by the disease if
the individual is not handled properly.
NO: isn't that what a hospital has i mean many people are sick and have diseases which are contagious
but they try to get cured that's why they go to hospitals. This is not a reason for not keeping them alive
because what if they actually get cured and got the chance to start a new life. I don't think that it will
REDUCE the spread of diseases becasue there are other people in the hospital that may suffer from
different diseases which may be contagious right? so does it stop on terminally ill people that they have a
contagious disease that's why they should be killed??

The miracles of the increasing availability of medical technology are a tremendous intervention in
saving human lives. But they can also bear out a curse by prolonging the dying process of a gravely
ill patient at the cost of great suffering and expense. The cost of futile life-prolonging treatment is
often exorbitant, but still ends up hopelessly towards death. This circumstance just forces the patient
to a miserable existence. Thus, it is important to consider the right of a dying person to remain in
charge of his body, choosing when to fight for his life and when to allow him to die, even though it is
the sole responsibility of the physician to keep him alive. Euthanasia benefits this choice of the
patient to consult to his death in order to relieve the excruciating pain from incurable and terminal
diseases; however, the legalization of this in the Philippines is contradicted by religious communities.
Euthanasia is a word coined from Greek in the 17th century meaning well death.
Euthanasia, then, is inducing the painless death of a person who is severely debilitated for reasons
assumed to be merciful, either through voluntary, nonvoluntary, involuntary means (Hendin, 2004).
Voluntary euthanasia involves the consent of the patient to perform the treatment. Nonvoluntary
euthanasia is conducted when the permission of the patient is unavailable maybe because of state of
coma, or instances when babies are born with significant birth defects. Involuntary euthanasia is
seldom practiced for it is performed against the will of the patient. All these types of euthanasia
applies methods such as removing the life-supporting devices, injection of drugs, inhalation of
carbon monoxide or helium, dehydration, and intake of suicide pills. However, moral and ethical
methods, such as voluntary euthanasia, and methods not involving painful outcomes are the ones
commonly practiced. These methods are done to patients who are terminally-ill; that is patients who

have impossible chance of recovering from the disease, or if ever cured, does not function in good
health and will be under vegetative state.
In the Philippines, euthanasia is not legal for the reason of the predominance of the religious
communities which hinders the ratification of the Euthanasia Bill. Also, the majority of the Filipinos
value the Christian doctrine as the foundation of their conviction. However, it is still practiced by
some, mostly are from the poor segment of the country. They have no other choice but to use
euthanasia to stop the patient from suffering, and to avoid expenses on medical treatments.
Additionally, medical technologies and professionals here in the Philippines are not entirely
advanced. Common Filipino physicians may have inadequate skills to efficiently cure complicated
diseases. If medications reach to the point of life-or-death matter, operations, at times, result to
failure, making all treatments paid by the relatives of the patient result in vain.. Likewise, medical
technologies are not completely available to cure various diseases; if ever it is, it will cost a
tremendous price.
The stand of the Church that euthanasia is still immoral and unethical is the prime reason of
the unacceptability of this. According to the most recent version of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church (2003), All forms of suicide and euthanasia remain strictly prohibited Voluntary cooperation in suicide is contrary to the moral law Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to
lead lives as normal as possible. And according to Pope John Paul II, Euthanasia must not be
called false mercy, and indeed a disturbing perversion of mercy. True compassion leads to sharing
anothers pain. It does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear. Also, some people
believe that compassion is no guarantee against doing harm. A physician who does not know how to
relieve a patients suffering may compassionately, but inappropriately, agree to end the patients life.
Patient autonomy is just an illusion when physicians are not trained to assess and treat patient
suffering. The less they know how to treat these suffering, the more they favor assisted suicide or
euthanasia; and the more frequent they do it, the more they prescribe it. Until, then, the only choices
left for patients become continued agony or a hastened death. A part of the Hippocratic Oath states
that physicians must value the life of their patient and never suggest anyone a way towards suicide.
Under the Philippine Constitution of 1987 (Article II, Section 11), the State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Therefore, euthanasia contradicts both
the Hippocratic Oath and the Philippine Constitution.
In contrast, Euthanasia gives terminally-ill patients a medical treatment of choosing between
a prolonged life of agonizing pain or a peaceful death. It is not a compulsory treatment, in which
every patient who has little or no chance of recovering will have to choose euthanasia. Euthanasia is

granted with the will of the patient or the surrogate of the patient and it is only upon their request that
physicians perform it. The legalization of euthanasia does not aspire to violate the ethical and moral
code, but rather just provide an option to those who need it. For example, to consider that financial
cost of keeping a person alive being dependent on a life-support machine is very enormous, and that
80% of the Filipinos live in poverty, how can the family afford keeping the patient on life support,
knowing that the patient will be in vegetative state, no matter how he was kept alive? With the
statistics that only 2 out of 10 terminally-ill patients survives because of proper medication, it is then
illogical to hope for the patient with no enough money for medication to recover from severe
diseases; this then results to euthanasia. And since euthanasia takes place anyway, even without the
ratification of the bill, it is better to legalize it so that it will be practiced under careful guidance,
doctors will have to report these activities, and so that physicians will not have any responsibility over
the death of the patient.
Euthanasia, even though contradicted by religious communities, still has to be legalized for
the benefit of the incurable and hopeless patients, including their relatives. This legalization will
improve further the system of planning, performing, and recording of euthanasia, since it takes place
inevitably. Likely, the issue regarding the ratification of the Euthanasia Bill of the Philippines is still on
its formative period, in which there is no consistency whether where the topic will go further in the
future. With both sides reflected in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that, it could become a
loud argument, once again, especially between the State and the Church.