Euthanasia is a subject that is in great debate and one that will continue to be a topic of controversy. Is it morally wrong? Are we not respecting patients’ rights? Is it suicide? These are just a few of the arguments that are of great controversy. I believe that euthanasia should not be permissible and the only times it should be are in cases of non-voluntary euthanasia, when patients are in a Persistent Vegetative State (“PVS”), and in times of war, during combat. What is the difference in killing someone and allowing them to die? With euthanasia, we might as well kill because we’re taking part in that patient’s death. We are totally devaluing human life. In the laws of nature, all things must die. In the film Dax Case, the first thing the man who was involved in the explosion told the farmer, who was the first on the scene, was to get him a gun so he could put himself out of his misery. The entire time he was hospitalized, he wanted to end his life. Everyone he came in contact with, he asked that question. The physician would not give up on him, and in the end, he pulled through and made something of himself. Though he was impaired, he was still able to maintain a life he wouldn’t have had if they would have listened to his request. If they wouldn’t have shown compassion for his situation he would have been deceased a long time ago. It goes to show that everyone should be entitled to fight for life and not give up on themselves when times are futile. I don’t feel we should put physicians in a position where they have to take a life. Like Daniel Callahan eluded, euthanasia could cause physicians to feel responsible for patients’ death. The Hippocratic Oath states the physicians should use treatment to help the sick according to their ability and judgment, but they should never use it to injure or wrong patients. Physicians are human also and just because they’re in a position of godliness status doesn’t mean that they would want to bear the thought of death on their hands. We should respect life and cherish every minute of it, even if there’s suffering involved. I think it’s the humane thing to do. Euthanasia is something that I feel is morally wrong but I do condone it in cases of non- voluntary euthanasia such as Persistent Vegetative States (“PVS”). An example of PVS is the Terri Schiavo case. She was on a feeding tube for over fifteen years. Her husband who was her surrogate wanted to end her life a lot sooner. Her parents, on the other hand, thought that she maintained some sort of brain function and wanted to prolong her life. They disagreed with the husband which led to many court hearings and put the courts in a position to determine her fate. Fifteen years later, a court finally ruled in favor of the husband and the feeding tube was removed. There have been rare exceptions where patients in a PVS have come out of that state. However, the percentage is extremely low. According to The American Academy of Neurology, “…of the adults in a persistent vegetative state for three months after brain trauma, 35 percent will die within a year after the injury. Another 30 percent will go into a permanent vegetative state, 19 percent will recover with severe disabilities, and 16 percent will recover with a moderate or minimal disability. If they remain in a persistent vegetative state for six months, 32 percent will die, 52 percent will go on to a permanent vegetative state, 12 percent will recover with severe disabilities, and 4 percent will recover with moderate or minimal disability. Non-traumatic brain damage markedly decreases the chance of any recovery. After such patients have been in PVS three months, only 6 percent will recover with severe disabilities and 1 percent will recover with a moderate or minimal disability. After six months, no adults who remain in that state recover.” (http://www.deathreference.com/Nu-Pu/Persistent-Vegetative-State.html) I believe that after a year, it should be left to a team of medical professionals to decide whether it’s beneficial to maintain life on support. In this case, it should have been left up to the husband to decide because he was the surrogate. After being in that state for over a year, I don’t think much can be done. Imagine the strain it puts on a family, not to mention, the medical staff. A situation such as this, for a prolonged period of time, can become mentally, emotionally, and financially draining. What about medical bills? Everyday she was kept alive, the medical bills were accumulating. I think if one doesn’t have the resources, it would set the family back drastically. Hospitals are very expensive. The time spent attempting to provide care for a person in a persistent vegetative state, with little hope for recovery, could be time and care given to a patient who could benefit from it.
The next area I feel Euthanasia should be permissible is on the battlefield. I believe soldiers in combat who are fatally wounded or have engaged in warfare that has left them severely impaired, have a right to decide their fate. So many movies over the years have depicted euthanasia on the battlefields; movie scenes where soldiers are so grotesquely wounded that they ask their fellow soldiers to give a fatal dose of morphine. “Battlefield euthanasia requests are documented in the Bible as far back as the time of Abimelech (around 1100 BC) in the city of Thebes.” (www.bordeninstitute.army.mil). Being in severe pain, knowing your situation is grim and enemies are all around, I don’t think it’s morally wrong to euthanize. Being a soldier, I think you have earned the right to decide if your life is no longer worth living. If a soldier is going to die on the battlefield anyway, I see nothing wrong with hastening their death if pain is unbearable. There are many arguments to be made about euthanasia not being permissible, about euthanasia only being permissible in a persistent vegetative state and also on the battlefield. James Rachels argued that killing someone is not morally worse than letting someone die. Dan Brock argued that Voluntary Active Euthanasia be morally permissible and a viable option for everyone. I think we should respect patients’ autonomy. A competent person should have the right to decide for him or herself what’s right. We control our bodies and many argue we can hold ourselves accountable for our actions. Sometimes death can be slow making life miserable and patients don’t want to suffer that long. Additionally, physicians wouldn’t be held accountable because euthanasia is patient-requested and physicians have the right to morally decline if they see fit. As far as euthanasia being permissible only in a persistent vegetative state and on the battlefield, we can bring many arguments to the forefront. When a patient is in PVS, it should be up to the family to decide when to shut off life support. Furthermore, if a patient has a will which states that they wouldn’t want to be taken off life support, we have to respect their wishes. As for battlefield euthanasia, some say it violates the military code of ethics. Wouldn’t euthanizing a fellow soldier be equivalent to killing the enemy? In many instances, soldiers have saved other soldiers’ lives when they asked to be euthanized? So there’s always hope. These are valid arguments when one is considering what is morally permissible and what is not. Why should euthanasia not be permitted? Take a look at the Dutch Experiment. This was an anonymous survey of Dutch doctors. Since the Dutch law in 2002, 50% of doctors that carried out euthanasia did not report them. Moreover, 10% of the involuntary active euthanasia cases were situations where competent patients were not asked for their consent, but were euthanized anyway (D. Callahan). Physicians must strive to always practice non-malefience. I believe if this is allowed, we will lose all respect for life as we know it. In regards to patients in a persistent vegetative state, we have to consider the emotional, mental, and financial constraints. I think we have to know when to say when, and not be selfish in our decisions. There are many patients who could benefit from the resources that are being exhausted by patients who become permanent “vegetables”. In battlefield euthanasia, I believe that if a man is honored to die for his country, then he should be allowed to choose between life or death when faced with a bleak outcome. In closing, I would like to say euthanasia is not something that I commit to. In life you know that you are going to do two things, live and die. I believe we should be entitled to both, but I believe life is worth fighting for. In terms of patients in PVS, and the condition of healthcare, we as a country cannot afford to use the resources if medical professionals have deemed their state permanent without any chance of recovery. On the battlefield, soldiers are held in very high regard. When you’re a soldier, you give your life even if you don’t agree with the fight. If a soldier thinks his situation is one that is futile, then we should respect his wishes.

Works Cited

Rachels, James. Active and Passive Euthanasia

Brock, Dan. Voluntary Active Euthanasia

Callahan, Daniel. When Self-Determination Runs Amok

www.bordeninstitute.army.mil

http://www.deathreference.com/Nu-Pu/Persistent-Vegetative-State.html, 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152032,00.html, 2005