Should euthanasia be legalized? Discuss.

Euthanasia has, for a long time, been a controversial issue in many parts of the world. So what is euthanasia exactly? According to Medical News Today, euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is loosely named mercy killing which basically involves the action of deliberately or with the expression of interest to end a person’s life to relieve persistent or intractable killing. ("What Is Euthanasia (assisted Suicide)? What Is The Definition Of Assisted Suicide Or Euthanasia?", n.d., p. 1) As of now, there are only three countries; Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, that have legalized euthanasia. This indicates that most people still stand by the fact that it is illegal for someone to help a person commit suicide regardless the situation. Euthanasia can be performed in two various ways. The first being passive, the second being active euthanasia.

According to Pregnant Pause, passive euthanasia is usually defined as withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intention of causing the patient's death. Normally if a patient has a heart attack or similar sudden interruption in life functions, medical staff will attempt to revive them. If they make no such effort but simply stand and watch as the patient dies, this is passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia on the other hand, refers to taking specific steps to cause the patient's death, such as injecting the patient with poison. During the course of this I will be referring to active euthanasia which causes more debate amongst opposing extremists. People who are against euthanasia call themselves the “Pro-Life” whereas people who are want to legalize euthanasia, have formed a society called The Voluntary Euthanasia Society. ("What Is Euthanasia (assisted Suicide)? What Is The Definition Of Assisted Suicide Or Euthanasia?", n.d., p. 1) In this essay, I will be discussing the stands of both parties and finally take my own personal stand on whether I feel euthanasia should be legalized.

Euthanasia should not be legalized because once people are given such freedom; family members are likely to abuse such power for their own personal and selfish reasons. For example, an extremely jealous brother might influence or bribe the physicians to kill his terminally ill sister so as to be able to inherit his father’s established empire and all the wealth that comes with it. Or perhaps, the cost of paying for a life time stay at the hospital might be costing the family a huge sum of money and therefore, they might force the patient to undergo mercy killing. Both cases show that euthanasia should not be legalized because no one can ever really be certain if the decision made to perform mercy killing was voluntary or, if it was manipulated by the patient’s family members with malicious intents.

It is not right to put doctors and nurses under such immense pressure of being involved in someone’s suicide. This is mainly because a doctor’s job is to prolong or improve life. Hence, by asking them to perform euthanasia; it would undeniably be breaking their Hippocratic Oath which firmly states that it is not right to not take away another person’s life. In fact, the modern Hippocratic Oath specifically says, “I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked. Nor will I counsel any such thing or perform it, for I have the utmost respect for every human life from its fertilization to natural death.” ("The Hippocratic Oath", n.d., p. 1) Physicians believe that by it’s a very nature; a human’s body is sacred. Thus the underlying ethical concern here is not only that it is against a physician’s sworn oath but also, it is going against their belief of human dignity and sanctity of life.

Another reason as to why assisted suicide should not be legalized is because the patient might not be in the proper state of mind to make such a critical decision. Which person would not be depressed immediately after being informed of having a fatal illness? According to medical research conducted in the United Sates, the incidence of major depression in terminally ill patients ranges up to 77%. A person diagnosed with depression, will find themselves being flooded with suicidal thoughts and feelings of extreme anxiety. Hence, since they experience an altered state of mind, their actions are very unpredictable which result to attempted suicide and self-loath. A 35-year-old man with AIDS met with his primary care physician added that the patient had just been lying around in his pyjamas, did not seem to be interested in anything, and was not taking his medications on schedule. “What's the point?” the patient asked. He said that he didn't care anymore, that he was going to die regardless of what he did. ("Depression, anxiety, and delirium in the terminally ill patient", n.d., p.1) Such feeling of helplessness will definitely deter a patient from making a uniformed decision on wonder he or she should undergo euthanasia. 

Fortunately depression, although serious, can be treated with help of proper counselling and medication. With proper guidance, a patient will be in a better state of mind to make such a decision. Therefore, I believe that a patient should only be given the choice of euthanasia under the proper guidance of a counsellor and physicist. So that, the decision will not be made when the patient is feeling depressed and the patient will be given the opportunity discuss family related issues or how he/she genuinely feels about the subject. Once the counsellor, the patient and the patient’s physician believe that the decision is truly a voluntary one then, euthanasia should be performed on the patient.

People who are “pro-life”, often the religious, regard assisted suicide as a grave sin. They believe that since we are only humans, we do not have the power to decide when we should die nor do we have the power to play God.  The religious believe that we are a creation of God and hence, by legalizing euthanasia, we are denying God’s right over us and his right to choose when we should die. They also believe that all the more, when someone is suffering, we should show our care and concern and try our utmost best to preserve, care and show respect for the inherent worth of all human beings.

My take on this if that humans have the right to live, then they should be given the right determine when we want to die. So long as the patient is very clear as to why he/she wants to die and is in the right mental state of mind, as confirmed by both the patient’s physician and counsellor. Yes, the religious may claim that it is up to God to decide when we should die. However, which all benevolent God would want to see his people all suffering in pain? Yes, it may be going against doctor’s oath to ‘improve life’. How is living such a sad life helping to improve life?  Keeping the patient alive would just prolong and in some cases, increase pain. Therefore, I believe euthanasia, should be an option because we are independent beings, with the right to make our own decisions about how and when we want to die. 

References

1.      Depression, anxiety, and delirium in the terminally ill patient. (n.d.). National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1291326/

2.      The Hippocratic Oath. (n.d.). Enter the NKTI Division of Urology. Retrieved from http://nktiuro.tripod.com/hippocra.htm

3.      What Is Euthanasia (assisted Suicide)? What Is The Definition Of Assisted Suicide Or Euthanasia? (n.d.). Medical News Today: Health News. Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.php

Should capital punishment be abolished? Discuss.

Capital punishment, which is the legal punishment of death by the government for people who have committed heinous crimes via methods such as electrocution, decapitation and shooting, is not an old practice. In fact, evidence has shown that death penalty practices date as far back as the Roman Empire. However, the delicate issue of whether it is justifiable to kill a man for his crime is still on-going and controversial. At this point in time, there are 58 countries practicing capital punishment and 97 countries that have abolished it. However, the words “death penalty”, “ capital punishment” still cause an uproar of chaotic debates between opposing parties who feel so strongly in what they stand for. So, on one end of the line, pro-capital punishment activist are saying that capital punishment is needed for reason such as; crime deterrence, extreme punishment, defeats the purpose of having a prison and vengeance. Whereas, on the other end, anti-capital punishment extremists are saying that capital punishment opens possibilities of convicting the wrong or innocent man, it infringes a person’s right to live and lastly, that no one person, or a group people, should be allowed or have the right, to play God.

There are three main reasons for having prisons. The first reason is rehabilitate convicts so that when they are released, they will not commit the same crimes and hopefully, become upstanding members of society. The second purpose of a prison is to protect innocent civilians in society. Thirdly, it is to punish criminals for the crime they have committed. So, if the purpose of having a prison is to prisons are to rehabilitate offenders who will eventually leave prison, then, it is not a place for people who have received life-time sentence in jail for they, will never have the opportunity to integrate with society again. Therefore, keeping imprison a person in jail for life would be defeating the purpose of having a prison.

As an old saying goes, “you do the crime, you serve the time”. Nowadays, the time served in jail by offenders for committing serious offences is becoming increasingly shorter. Criminals are being sentenced to just 10 years of imprisonment for armed robbery. Criminals no longer fear the consequences of punishment if they are ware that they will not be ‘rewarded’ with a death sentence after having committed a heinous crime. The purpose of punishment is to validate a person for his/her wrongdoings; it has to be painful or unpleasant to the criminal. Severe and effective punishment, such as capital punishment, deters crime and ensures that citizens understand the message that the law must be obeyed. How can we stop criminals from breaking the law if we do not fear the judicial system?

Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.  In 2011, according to the Strait Times, the crime rate in Singapore had reached its lowest of only 606 crimes being recorded. The benefits of a country that follow from a country where citizens fear the law are clearly in shown in Singapore where people do not need walk in fear of being raped or murdered at night. Another law that The Singaporean government has imposed is the approval capital punishment on people accused of extremely serious crimes. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs Singapore, in the case of drug trafficking, the death penalty has deterred major syndicates from establishing themselves in Singapore ("Ministry of Home Affairs - The Singapore Government's Response To Amnesty International's Report "Singapore - The Death Penalty: A Hidden Toll Of Executions"", n.d., p.1) and therefore, preventing further chaos and social problems such as; theft, murder and suicide.

Another good example would be New York, for more than two decades, New York was without the death penalty. During this time, fear of crime was compounded by the fact that, too often, it largely went unpunished. Nowadays in New York, the death penalty has turned the tables on fear and put it back where it belongs, in the hearts of criminals. Within just one year, the death penalty helped produce a dramatic drop in violent crime. Just as important, it has restored New Yorkers' confidence in the justice system because they know their government genuinely is committed to their safety. ("Death penalty is a deterrent", n.d., p. 1) 

Having said this, I am not trying to say that all criminals should be killed. Instead, I am saying that countries should death penalty as an option so as install fear in people to not commit crimes and to prevent people who do not fear death but love to engage in unspeakable criminal activities. This will act as crime deterrent and bring safety.

From the government’s perspective it is cheaper to imprison the criminal for life then to go through the complex procedures of death penalty. In a study done in North Carolina, the death penalty costs them $2.16 million more than a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. In Texas, the death penalty costs around $2.3 million, nearly three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a maximum security jail for forty years. The death penalty is causing government officials to lose jobs, and most importantly, police to be removed from the streets. How can crime be stopped if police does not watch over the streets? ("Part II: Practical Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty", n.d., p. 1) Thus death penalty should be abolished. Firstly, the money that the government uses to pay for their death penalty comes from the citizens themselves. The money saved from death penalties can be used to improve other aspects of the country such as; infrastructure, healthcare and education. The cost of death penalties is causing some countries so much money that the government has to charge increase tax.

The religious, however, believe that by deciding who and when someone dies, we are playing God and I do not believe that that is our choice to make. Who are we to make that decision? We are all sinners; the only difference is that these criminals have just sinned in a different way from us. They should just do ‘the time for the crime’ and be sent to jail for life. By putting them in special, guarded prison, there are no longer threats to society.

 Some people may claim that they want their vengeance. I understand that families feel that the death of the murderer who killed their loved one is the best form of revenge as killing the murder, would be to do what he did to the upon himself and therefore, bring help bring closure to everything. What they need to know is life in prison can equally cause the same immense amount of pain and suffering to the guilty. From having complete freedom to do as they please, these inmates enter a world where they are completely deprived of any. They are in a realm of torture; where being reprimanded or for any mistake they do and having to do exhausting physical activities from dawn to dusk is a norm. All they see are the four walls of their mundane looking prison, their sergeants and their equally gloomy inmates. This probably the least desirable situation I would ever want to be for the rest of my life. It is through this form of suffering that will repent for their grave criminal offense. Therefore,

Many who read this may still end up wondering if it is justifiable to kill a person because of the serious crime they have committed. That is because this very debatable issue and very susceptible to our various opinions. Every individual’s life is important and we should not take death very lightly, for all we know, it could just be anyone of us up for capital punishment? That is why it should only be an option for people who commit really rare crimes; terrorism, child rape of multiple occasions, serial killing etc. Yes the religious may say that then, we are playing God this way but seeing how the benefits outweigh that statement, we must have capital punishment as a mandatory option for the greater good of society.

References

1. 1.      Death penalty is a deterrent. (n.d.). Pro-death penalty.com. Retrieved from http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/articles/pataki.htm
2. 2.      Ministry of Home Affairs - The Singapore Government's Response To Amnesty International's Report "Singapore - The Death Penalty: A Hidden Toll Of Executions". (n.d.). Ministry of Home Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74
3. 3.      Part II: Practical Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/practical.html