Why We Should Make Euthanasia Legal

Doctors will today debate the existing laws on euthanasia. Here Dr Kailash Chand
explains the reasons behind his motion for the introduction of new legislation to allow
terminally ill people the choice of an assisted death
Kailash Chand

https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jul/01/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-uk

Wed 1 Jul 2009 09.57 BSTFirst published on Wed 1 Jul 2009 09.57 BST

The issue of euthanasia, or assisted dying, is incredibly controversial and there are legitimate
concerns on either side of the debate. Today I will propose a motion to the British Medical
Association's annual conference in Liverpool, which states:

This meeting supports the introduction of legislation to allow people who are terminally ill
but 'mentally competent', the choice of an assisted death. Further, the law should not
criminalise people who accompany those who make rational decisions to end their
suffering.

The motion will seek to take the issue forward in a compassionate and fair way that I believe
will serve the interests of the terminally ill and our society.

The starting point has to be in the law, which at present is failing, as shown by the recurrence
of cases in the courts that often place relatives, already dealing with the painful loss of a
loved-one, in the middle of distressing legal battles. There is clearly a desire – whether we
like it or not – among a number of patients at the end of often terrible battles with
debilitating, incurable diseases to end their suffering with the support of their relatives. To
deny this right is to prolong the suffering for individuals and families, something that I can
simply not condone.

I do accept though that this is not like any other clinical decision – and that if society is to
offer this solemn choice it must also build in safeguards to its laws that not only rectify the
inadequacies of the current situation, but also protect the vulnerable, the weak and all those
– doctors and nurses included – who are involved in this incredibly difficult situation.

As a start we must enact legislation to decriminalise acts of euthanasia and physician-

assisted suicide. Some of the reasons that are compelling enough for us to change our laws
are:
Prevention of cruelty and protection of human rights

To allow a terminally ill individual to end their life is the only humane, rational and
compassionate choice. The current prohibitions require a person with great physical and/or
mental suffering to continue to endure their suffering against their wishes, which cannot be
right. The right to life and the right to private and family life under the European convention
on human rights should be interpreted broadly to include decisions about quality of life,
including decisions about death if the life is no longer one of quality.

Regulatory Control

The terminally ill are travelling abroad to countries where the right to end of life in terminal
cases is recognised and is lawful. We cannot regulate the laws of foreign lands. We must
make provisions within our laws to regulate this issue within our boundaries under our
control and supervision. We must not prosecute loved ones for "encouraging or assisting"
suicide who enable or assist a terminally ill individual to travel abroad to end his or her life
lawfully.

Ambiguity in the application of the current law

The current law conflicts with the law as it is being enforced. If the laws as written were
being enforced, over a hundred people would have been prosecuted for accompanying their
loved ones abroad to help them end their lives. This ambiguity and uncertainty leaves all
concerned, including physicians, unprotected.

Discriminatory effect of the laws

The ability of the wealthy to travel to countries where it is lawful for the terminally ill to end
their lives has the discriminatory impact of treating the haves and have-nots unequally.

The Safeguards

Many people are opposed to legislation that would allow "end of life" choices. But our
concerns relating to abuses and protection of the vulnerable can be addressed by ensuring
that certain objective safeguard conditions are met prior to allowing a terminally ill
individual from exercising his or her right to die with dignity. Some of the safeguards include
the following:
• The patient must be terminally ill.
• The patient must be an adult.
• The patient must be mentally competent.
• The patient must be in severe pain.
• Two independent physicians must be satisfied that the above conditions are present.

In conclusion, the only humane choice is to allow individuals who are suffering to choose to
end their suffering. Further, the discrepancies in the laws as they exist and how they are
being enforced have led to uncertainty. This uncertainty leaves the doctors, their patients
and patient's loved ones unprotected. If we do not address these issues openly and head-on,
we will have continued uncertainty and unregulated practice of euthanasia or assisted
suicide with the fear of prosecution hanging over the heads of all concerned.

The goals of the medical profession should continue to remain one of saving lives but this
should not be at the expense of compassion and a terminally ill individual's right to choose to
end his or her life and die with dignity.

• Dr Kailash Chand is a GP in Greater Manchester

 SUMMARY RESPONSE ESSAY
M. Fikar Fauzan Kamil / 16718322

The article titled “Why We Should Make Euthanasia Legal” by Kailash Chand contains the

explanation from dr. Kailash Chand, a GP in Greater Manchester, about the reasons of his

agreement to legalize terminally ill people got euthanasia according to their wish. According

to him, we must enact laws to decriminalize acts of euthanasia and suicide assisted by

doctors. At least, there are five reasons to change the laws. The reasons : (1) Prevention of

cruelty and protection of human rights. For him, letting someone terminally ill end his life is

the only choice that is human, rational, and full of love; (2) Regulatory control. For him, we

must make provisions in our law to regulate this problem within our limits under our control

and supervision. This is because severely ill people must travel abroad to countries where the

right to terminate life in a terminal case is recognized and is lawful; (3) Ambiguity in the

application of the current law, (4) Discriminatory effect of the laws. According to him, the

ability of rich people to travel to countries where it is lawful for terminally ill people to end

their lives has a discriminatory impact in treating rich and poor people; and (4) The

safeguards. For him, our concerns relating to abuses and protection of the vulnerable can be

addressed by ensuring that certain objective safeguard conditions are met prior to allowing a

terminally ill individual from exercising his or her right to die with dignity. Basically, I

disagree with Kailash Chand to legalize the practice of euthanasia.

At least, there are two kind of euthanasia: active euthanasia, and passive euthanasia. Active

euthanasia is an action taken to speed up death either directly or indirectly, for example by

giving cyanide tablets or injecting substances that consume the patient's body (Pradjonggo,

2016). This action was directly aimed at killing patients, as in the case of lethal injection, this

action seemed to treat patients as perpetrators of criminal acts. While passive euthanasia is

an action that may cause speed up death by refusing to provide medical help, or stopping the

process of ongoing medical treatment, for example by stop giving infusion, respiratory aids,
cancellation of surgery, etc (Pradjonggo, 2016). The practice of euthanasia referred to in the

article is active euthanasia.

Basically, everyone has the right to live. This right must absolutely be fulfilled. Euthanasia as

mentioned in the article seize the right. Plus, if Euthanasia is legalized, that would make

other people that’s desperate, even though they don’t have a desease that has very little life

expectancy or even is not physically sick at all. It would be terrible if people came to doctor to

ask for euthanasia. This is certainly very contrary to the medical code of ethics, even human

rights. Doctors should help people stay alive, not contrarily. According to Math and

Chaturvedi (2012), research has revealed that many terminally ill patients requesting

euthanasia, have major depression, and that the desire for death in terminal patients is

correlated with the depression. In Indian setting also, strong desire for death was reported

by 3 of the 191 advanced cancer patients, and these had severe depression. They need

palliative and rehabilitative care. They want to be looked after by enthusiastic,

compassionate and humanistic team of health professionals and the complete expenses need

to be borne by the State so that ‘Right to life’ becomes a reality and succeeds before ‘Right to

death with dignity’. Palliative care actually provides death with dignity and a death

considered good by the patient and the care givers.

I might be able to agree to the practice of euthanasia. That applies only to passive euthanasia

for patients who truly have no life expectancy, plus they don’t have enough money to pay for

a treatment, and there is no other way to get treatment. For example, a patient with

terminally ill and feels tremendous suffering, and he/she is charged with complicated and

expensive medical equipment, but no life expectancy. The patient might be euthanized on a

note, this is already under the consent of patients and families. And, the treatment is only

passive euthanasia in the form of lifting medical devices, without accelerating murder by

deliberately killing them. But not for active euthanasia. Patient will die instantly if active

euthanasia performed. However, the patient maybe has more life expectancy. Especially

when talking about religion, the pain of person can be a moment of eradicating his sin,
provided he is patient through it. God won’t impose anything beyond the ability of His

servants. Examinations can certainly be finished no matter how difficult and heavy the

problem is.

In conclusion, I disagree if euthanasia is legalized. No matter how severe a person’s illness is,

no matter how small one’s life expectancy is, however, there is always hope for life, even a

little. There are human rights that we have to obey together. Lets respect that right.

Sources :

Chand, Kailash. (2009, July 1). Why We Should Make Euthanasia Legal. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jul/01/euthanasia-assisted-

suicide-uk.

Math, Suresh B., and Chaturvedi, Santosh K. (2012). Euthanasia: Right To Life vs Right To

Die. Indian J Med Res. 136(6): 899–902. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/#

Pradjonggo, Tjandra S. (2016). Suntik Mati (Euthanasia) Ditinjau Dari Aspek Hukum

Pidana Dan Hak Asasi Manusia Di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila

dan Kewarganegaraan, 1, p. 59.