EUTHANASIA

POSITION PAPER

SUBMITTED BY:
ERICA MAE FALLER
HUMSS LAGMAY

SUBMITTED TO:
JOHN EDEL R. MANANSALA

DATE OF SUBMISSION:
NOVEMBER 28, 2023

Euthanasia is a complex and controversial topic that revolves around the ethical
considerations of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering. The debate on
euthanasia dates back centuries, with ancient Greek and Roman philosophers discussing
the moral implications of assisted death. However, modern discussions intensified in the
20th century as medical advancements raised new ethical questions. The Netherlands
became the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2002, sparking a global conversation
about the boundaries of autonomy and medical ethics. While opponents argue that
euthanasia undermines the sanctity of life and the physician's role as a healer, proponents
contend that it respects individual autonomy and provides a compassionate end to
unbearable suffering. Striking a balance between these perspectives is crucial in
formulating ethically sound policies.
Some argue that legalizing euthanasia opens the door to potential abuse, with
concerns about involuntary euthanasia or pressure on vulnerable individuals to end their
lives prematurely. Instances of abuse and coercion in places where euthanasia is legal
cannot be ignored. Critics point to situations where patients may feel obligated to request
euthanasia due to societal or familial pressure, undermining the notion of free and
voluntary choice.
Euthanasia can be a humane option for individuals facing unbearable suffering and
imminent death, allowing them to maintain control over their final moments. The
principle of autonomy supports an individual's right to make decisions about their own
life and death. When facing terminal illnesses with no hope of recovery, euthanasia offers
a dignified exit for those who wish to avoid unnecessary pain and prolonged suffering.
Legalizing euthanasia can enhance the doctor-patient relationship by fostering
open and honest communication about end-of-life choices. When euthanasia is legally
regulated, physicians and patients can openly discuss options without fear of legal
repercussions. This transparency enables better understanding and decision-making,
ensuring that patients' wishes are respected and met.
Societal attitudes toward euthanasia may impact the perception of the value
of human life, potentially leading to a devaluation of vulnerable populations. The societal
acceptance of euthanasia may unintentionally contribute to a culture that places less
emphasis on the intrinsic worth of every individual. Historical examples, such as the
eugenics movement, highlight the risks of societal attitudes influencing policies that
discriminate against certain groups. A societal commitment to compassion and support
for those facing end-of-life suffering can foster a culture that values every individual,
regardless of their health condition.
In summary, while acknowledging the deep challenges associated with
end-of-life care and the desire to alleviate suffering, a cautious stance against euthanasia
is advocated. This approach prioritizes the preservation of life, the ethical considerations
inherent in the medical profession, and the potential unintended consequences of
accepting euthanasia as a societal norm. Rather than embracing a path that may lead to
irreversible ethical shifts, the emphasis should be on compassionate, comprehensive, and
universally accessible palliative care. To address the complexities surrounding end-of-life
care, society should engage in open and informed discussions, promote research and
improvements in palliative care, and advocate for policies that safeguard the ethical
principles of preserving life and protecting the vulnerable. This approach ensures a
compassionate response to suffering while upholding the foundational values that guide
our understanding of the sanctity of life.