Euthanasia

Euthanasia is closely related to the general recognition of freedom from an unintelligent brutality
for an existence in case of terminally ill patients. Some people argue that each individual Is the
absolute master of his destiny so the decision should be left to the person concerned. Their
argument is based on the considerations of the quality of life. Both in India and the Western
realm, debate on euthanasia highlights the significance of the patient's power of decision and
the freedom to exercise his free will.

Classification of Euthanasia*
Euthanasia can be broadly classified into three different types, i.e., the voluntary, the
involuntary, and the non voluntary euthanasia. All the three types of euthanasia are only
applicable to the terminally ill patients and the significance of the patient 's power of decision.

Voluntary euthanasia
The voluntary euthanasia is carried out at the request of the person who wants to undergo the
process of euthanasia. Sometimes, euthanasia can also be called voluntary when a person
being in good health makes a written request, in some specific cases, if in future where he
cannot make use of his mental faculties and there is no hope for recovery. There are basically a
few conditions which are proposed to be an imperative for a person to be allowed euthanasia.
1st, the person is suffering from a terminal illness.
2nd, the person is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure during her remaining life
expectancy. He is suffering either from an intolerable pain or living in a vegetative state. All
these cases should be expressed very clearly in case of euthanasia. Finally, in voluntary
euthanasia the person should be enabled the aim of her life without any assistance.

Involuntary Euthanasia
In involuntary euthanasia the person being killed is capable of consenting his own death but
does not do so, because either he’s not asked or he chooses to go on living in that condition.
Non voluntary euthanasia
In non voluntary euthanasia, a human being is incapable of understanding the choice between
life and death. It includes cases like those who are incurably ill, severely disabled infants, or the
people who have permanently lost the capability of understanding or the cognitive faculties. In
those cases the consent of the concerned person is not required and the decision can be taken
by the physician or the relation by proxy. The physician or the relation makes the decision on
behalf of the patient.

Active and passive euthanasia

In passive euthanasia, the doctor does not do anything to bring the patient death and the patient
dies because of his terminal illness. On the other hand, in active euthanasia, the doctor does
something to bring about the patient’s death. For example, if a patient has terminal cancer, in
passive euthanasia, the doctor merely suggests the treatment and the patient dies because of
the cancer; but in active euthanasia, the doctor gives a lethal injection to the patient and is
responsible for the death of the patient. Usually, the passive euthanasia is morally permissible
in certain situations, but the active euthanasia is not morally permissible till now.

The classical Greek has interpreted the life and death in a significant manner by using the term
"Eudemonia" for good life and "Euthanasia" for good death. The good life primarily reflects a
mode of living and explain a genuine concern for safeguarding the goodness and sanctity of life,
whereas Euthanasia is recognised to face the death courageously and usually closely
associated with self-willed painless death. It is closely related to a general recognition of leave
in the case of terminally ill patients.

The legal, ethical aspect of Euthanasia raised many important moral, social, legal and medical
questions. The 21st century, the controversies over Euthanasia is often seen as a by product of
the advancement in the biomedical technology, which is capable of preserving the life of a
terminally ill patient indefinitely. The moral and legal aspects of Euthanasia are extremely
complicated as the experts have to distinguish between the active and passive euthanasia as
well as voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia. Sometimes, when we consider the third type of
Euthanasia, which is called the non voluntary Euthanasia, the patient lacks "the decision making
capacity". This is sometimes also called suicide by proxy. Euthanasia is also called "Mercy

killing".

The main argument for legalising Euthanasia is that it will allow some individuals to escape from
the useless suffering by a merciful death at one's own choice. This argument is based upon
demand for compassion and it is a special adjustment where life becomes like death . One

should not face an unintelligent brutality of existence, which is imposed on us.

In order to justify Euthanasia, the moralists face the dilemma of reconciling "Sanctity of life
principle". Those who are arguing for the case, their argument is based on the quality of life,
granting the fact that Human life is a fundamental value and it should be protected in all
situations, but the question is that what type of life do we want - a qualitatively superior or
inferior life - and in what sense is a life viewed as "good"? A life is also a good life when the
capability of endeavour is not destroyed. According to Peter Singer, the value of life should be
based on the traits such as rationality, autonomy and self consciousness. So, when man lacks

this capability, and life reduces to a vegetative state and he lives merely as an organism, one
may beg for mercy death. A human being may not want to prolong the biological existence and
refuses to leave in a dignified way. His decision for euthanasia can be justified. Here, the
Human being wants to participate the dying process in a very dignified way. So, here death is
viewed not as a happening, but as a value to be realised in a dignified manner. Being Human

includes to exercise the very end for the fulfillment of Human nature.
It appears that both in Indian and Western debates on Euthanasia, highlights the significance of
the patient's power of decision and the freedom to exercise their free will. So, Euthanasia is
always viewed as an option based on the choice of the individual. But, here, one should be very
clear and the medical profession should be better guided in deciding the genuine special
terminal illness.

The arguments for voluntary Euthanasia

The Right To Die
The right to to die is a concept based upon that Human beings are entitled to their own life by
accepting euthanasia. This type of position of right is often associated with the terminally ill
cases. This is possible by assisted suicide or declining the life prolonging treatment . So,

this right to life is often center of a debate to decide whom to empower to make this
decision.

As we have already discussed the thinkers who support Euthanasia believe in the quality of life,
forcing the medical treatment on a competent adult patient who does not want to leave its
tuntamount to assault. By not allowing euthanasia, we are not accepting the autonomy of the
patient, which should be respected. The supporters always ask the consent to death by saying
that it is better to die a painless death rather than to go on living a painful life .

Against voluntary Euthanasia

The person who do not support Euthanasia believe in the intrinsic value of life. They believe
that concept of Euthanasia will weaken the sanctity of life. There are innumerous religious
arguments which say that life is given by God, so it is sacred. So, we should not interfere in the
process of death. Philosophers like Kant believe that our inherent value does not depend on
anything else. It does not depend whether we are having a good life or not. We exist, so we
have value.

On the other hand, the utilitarians believed in the concept of greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. In their opinion, the highest principle by adhering the voluntary Euthanasia by
looking at the greatest happiness principle. Utilitarians also support the active euthanasia as the
believe that it is quicker and less painful for the patient. So, there are many religious, ethical as
well as legal arguments for this motion.

Quality of life
When we discuss the concept of Euthanasia, the most important point centres around the
quality of life. According to Peter Singer, the lives of the terminally ill patients have no intrinsic
value. There is no advantage of survival in a comatose state if death without recovery is certain.
The lives of the patients who are in coma, are not self conscious, and these people experience
more pain than pleasure. So, there is no point in keeping such human beings alive; but the most
important point again arises in respecting the individual's freedom and autonomy by legalising
Euthanasia. Here, Peter Singer has discussed a very important point which arises if we
legalised the non voluntary Euthanasia. For an instance, in the case of the elderly people or the
senile elderly patients, the fear of death might be quite irrational. This will lead to insecurities
and fear among those who are not now, but might come to be within its scope. Sometimes it is
difficult to convince people, particularly if the old age have affected their memories and the
power of reasoning.

Slippery slope argument

Many critiques of active euthanasia have objected that by legalising Euthanasia will place the
society on a slippery slope which will lead to unacceptable consequences, which means that it

will no longer be in the power of anyone to limit the killing to those who wish to die. This may
lead to the unconstrained abuse of power by a physician or by a ruling reign. Parallels have
often been drawn to the Nazi Euthanasia program, which claims about hundred-thousands of
lives.

Peter Singer has distinguished between the two by stating that the Nazi Euthanasia was never
voluntary or non voluntary. It can never be considered as Euthanasia because the intention was
never to eliminate the pain and suffering, rather the value of life is decided on the basis of
"racial origin" or "ability to work". It is essential for us to legalise the euthanasia in s democratic
country, which gives full respect to the autonomy and freedom of choice.

The advancement of medical science has changed the conditions of Human life, but the
fundamental principles of life have not changed yet. Their applications may differ according to
the needs of time. Rules which were once valid and useful may become obsolete. The great
masters principle of love and compassion should impale us to support the voluntary Euthanasia.
So, in my opinion, it should be legalised and the state should permit an adult person with a
sound mind, whose life is ending with much suffering to choose between an early, painless
death than a hard, painful life.