Project Report

Euthanasia
Submitted to: Prof. Sadaf Munir

Rabia Dar
(l1f10mbam1310)

Bushra Khaliq
(l1f10mbam2307)

Saher Tariq
(l1f10mbam2303)
Euthanasia

Recent debates over active euthanasia, "killing" a terminally ill patient, in Holland, has raised the
question whether euthanasia is immoral or a simple human right. Doctors seem to have no doubt. They
made an oath.

The definition of Euthanasia depends on whether it is active or passive. Active Euthanasia I only allowed
in Holland, and it means that the doctor takes direct measures to put a patient to sleep, whereas passive
Euthanasia only involves stopping pill consumption, or stopping treatment. In England, only passive
Euthanasia is allowed.

Euthanasia touches some of the deepest feelings in human beings. It is the power over life and death,
and responsibilities no one wishes to ake, have to be taken. This, of cause, leads to the ultimatum, that
it is the patient's own choice. But can we allow some one to take their own lives? Doesn't this mean that
everyone else around the patient has failed, that more could have been done? From the patient's
point of view, a lot of arguments talk in favour of euthanasia. For one, no body wants to be a burden. If
a person has had a car accident, which paralyses him from neck and down, and is doomed to sit in a
wheelchair for the rest of his life, he knows that he will be 100% dependant on the ones that care for
him, his lived ones, forever. It can also be mentioned that the life quality of a terminally ill patient, gets
reduced a lot. Never being able to walk again, never being able to talk to your children again, never
being able to go shopping, swimming, playing, driving etc. must be terrible for anyone. The whole
situation only gets worse, if the patient himself can see that his condition is worsening, and only time
keeps his thoughts clear. A third very important point is pain. If people see a deer, which had been hit by
a car, and is in terrible pain, they will kill it, out of pity. Why shouldn't the same be allowed with
humans, if pain reaches a level, where it is unbearable? For these people, who do not have the choice of
active euthanasia, self-starvation is the only choice.

The doctor's view on euthanasia seems to be overall different. First of all, they have taken their wove,
always to assist patients in prolonging their lives, and Euthanasia completely contradicts this. Their
approach is "Where there is life, there is hope", so even a person, who has 20 tubes stuck in them,
feeding them, breathing for them, there is still life, and who knows? Maybe the future will bring the
cure?

Euthanasia does mean "Good death", but there can still be no conclusion to a question, whether
Euthanasia should be accepted or not. Psychologists, philosophers, doctors and everybody else, will
consider this question for all time. My opinion is, that anyone who is terminally ill should have the
choice, but to all rules there are exceptions, and to something as serious as this, there shouldn't be.

Euthanasia Today

Euthanasia has been, and always will be, a controversial moral and ethical subject. While the majority of
both Americans and Canadians seem to support euthanasia as indicated by the latest polls, it is still
illegal in both countries. I think it is important to first distinguish between passive euthanasia and active
euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the stopping or not starting some treatment, which allows a person to
die. Active euthanasia, the more controversial of the two, is doing something such as administering a
lethal drug or using other means that cause a person's death. My main focus will be
on active euthanasia. A prime example of active euthanasia is the Robert Latimer case. Latimer was
given a life sentence with no chance of parole for ten years after being convicted of second-degree
murder in the "mercy killing" of his severely disabled daughter. I will discuss reasons why some people
support euthanasia, why others oppose it, and then offer my own opinion.

People who support euthanasia believe that terminally ill patients have the right to die with respect and
dignity. They believe it is the only humane, merciful choice for those "living to die". Euthanasia for them
would provide freedom from the guilt of being a burden to caregivers. From the caregivers perspective it
is also the only humane choice. Many of them see it as the ultimate act of love because of the
consequences of that action. Supporters of euthanasia also argue that extending the life of a terminally
ill patient by artificial means is unethical. That is, doctors are "playing God" when they resist the natural
progression of a fatal disease when there is no cure or hope of one. In addition, they argue that current
medications for pain and palliative care for the dying are inadequate.

Arguments against euthanasia are many. The most controversial, of course, is the religious belief that
life is sacred and suffering is an important part of every human life. From a moral and legal perspective,
active euthanasia is an act of murder because murder, by definition, is an unlawful premeditated killing
of one human being by another. Euthanasia, then, violates a person's right to be protected from harm.
From a medical standpoint, there are several reasons not to support it. First of all, euthanasia is contrary
to a doctor's oath to save lives. Secondly, suffering can be alleviated medically in most cases.
Psychotherapy is a valuable tool in coping with the depression that accompanies terminal illness. In
addition, in cases where a patient is semi-conscious, there is no certainty that consent is voluntary. Then
there is always the possibility of a mistaken diagnosis. Sometimes patients experience a complete
remission from their illness. There is also the possibility of a new cure being discovered. Finally, if
euthanasia is legalized, there is the danger that doctors could abuse it.

I support euthanasia in certain situations where the pain in a terminal illness cannot be controlled and
the damage from the illness is irreversible. In these cases, a panel of doctors should be available to help
patients and their families make the choice that is right for them. Never, under any circumstances,
should a parent of other person have the right to make a life-death decision when the patient is unable
to make the decision for himself/herself. One exception is when doctors ask parents to make that
decision where "preemies" or newborns have no chance of survival. The other, of course, is when a
person is "brain dead". Homicide is acceptable in cases of self-defence; therefore, I believe euthanasia
should be acceptable as an act of mercy in certain cases. I don't know if legalizing euthanasia is the
answer because of the possible abuse of the law. Perhaps, changing the homicide law to allow
euthanasia under strict conditions would be a better solution. Perhaps, putting it to a
referendum would be the only answer. I hope that I will never be confronted with this choice, but in my
heart I know that I would make the right one, because it would be made out of love.

Euthanasia A solution or a crime

Death is a foregone decision. Every person deserves a choice to live or die. The natural fear people have
of suffering and dying and when cure is no longer likely, there are only two alternatives: euthanasia
or unbearable pain. People who wish to retain their dignity and choices at the end of life should have
the option of a peaceful and gentle death. Euthanasia is one of the most important public policy issues
being debated today. Is this a solution or a crime? The outcome of the debate will affect family
relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic morality. Some doctors
support euthanasia because they feel that there will always be patients who feel their suffering is
senseless, who have made peace with their dying and want to get it over with. Patients still wish to
end their lives in spite of the very best pain care and emotional support. If they are in a Permanent
Vegetative State of mind (PVS), we should prevent the force-feeding of a patient who has no prospect of

recovery and who may not wish to live artificially.

Euthanasia, also known as "mercy-killing," means intentionally making someone die, rather than
allowing that person to die naturally. Do we have the right to take a human's life? Certain religious
people do not oppose euthanasia because they believe that only God has the authority to take a
human's life. Direct killing of another person is wrong and at the same time, it would also be cruel and
inhumane. Every person has a second chance to regain faith. On the other hand, doctors should
have sufficient time to discuss end-of-life issues with the dying. We must increase our efforts to provide
care to those who are dying, so that assisted suicide does not become the only choice they have. A
terminally ill person is incoherent to decide in a short time of what they want to do.

However, it would require counselling. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but,
instead, is about changing the law and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly
and intentionally end another person's life. It is not about the right to die. It's about the right to kill.
Euthanasia could have a positive effect but giving a person the right to decide is the most important.
It is nobody's decision to take anyone's life except for that individual himself. Finally, if euthanasia is
legalized, then people or children who cannot make their own decisions could be killed
intentionally. The concern of how a death request would be legalized still remains.

Ethical or unethical – This is what Euthanasia is about!

Euthanasia is still a gray area, in the black and white terms of legal ruling. Some countries, namely The
Netherlands, Belgium and North America allow Physician Assisted Suicide or PAS.
A person’s life is shattered with the discovery that he is terminally ill with an incurable disease. When
this happens, he or she will probably go through four phases:

1. The first is Denial: - “There must be a mistake, this cannot happen to me. The reports
must be wrong. The doctors must have made a mistake.”

2. The second – Anger: Anger at the injustice by God, against fate, against doctors, against
life on the whole.

3. Then comes the Depression – this is by far the most dangerous emotion. At this time a
person needs constant counseling and sympathetic understanding.

4. And this is followed by Acceptance. When a person finally accepts and understands the
cruel blow that life has dealt him.

A person has lived life with pride and confidence. He has looked after himself, dressed well,
eaten well and lived life with dignity. Would it be too much to accord a modicum of dignity to
him when he dies? He can see the bleak future, in a life of increasing medication, and
dependency on machines for bodily functions with the unrelenting pain. The prognosis is
negative. By letting a person under such circumstances opt for euthanasia would be ethical and
humane.

But, at the same time, in some instances, when a person pleads for Euthanasia, he may be
under extreme depression. Counseling would be a better choice. At times a person does not
want to burden his family. His desire for release stems from guilt.

I remember the time when my Uncle was terminally ill, diagnosed with a brain tumor, which
could not be operated on or removed. He was a man who lived life with verve. He believed in
living life to the fullest.

To say it was painful to watch him scream with anguish in severe pain is an understatement.

In his lucid moments he pleaded for release, and the doctor did help him. He gave him high
doses of morphine which did alleviate his pain to some extent, but also ended his life with
respiratory disorders.

When a person suffers severe head injuries, he is at times declared “Brain Dead”. In such cases
there is absolutely no chance of recovery. He can live like a vegetable, only with life support
machines. It would be kinder to the relatives not to prolong such lives. My brother-in-law, who
is a nephrologist, comes across such cases a few times. He is heartened and humbled when
relatives of such patients donate the organs of their loved ones. These are instances where life
and hope emerge from tragedy.
The really difficult part is, when a person is in coma. This may be for days, months and
sometimes for several years. Doctors are doubtful about recovery, but at the same time there is
no foolproof method where they can be sure about recovery. This is a decision that should be
taken by the immediate family, rather than court.

It can be very traumatic to wait and watch with unflagging hope, day after day, year after year.
At the same time, if there is a law that permits Euthanasia, people could twist the law to their
own advantage. It could be related to the responsibility, the finance or the time.

The debate on euthanasia has been raging for years and is it is unlikely that it will ever be
resolved. Each case is different and involves something so precious – a human life. To think of
taking someone’s life for whatever reason seems unfathomable, yet there will be instances,
when keeping a person alive would be cruel and selfish. To have a set of laws deciding one way
or the other will not resolve the complexities of the issue. Each case is different and would have
to be viewed in context and even then it is difficult to decide. Unethical or ethical? It’s unlikely
whether we’ll ever know.