|
The Sanctity of Life: Summary Arguments Opposing Euthanasia
Ian Ireland
Law and Public Administration Group
Introduction
The passage of the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act
1995 and introduction of the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 in the Australian
Parliament has ignited an often vociferous debate in Australia about euthanasia.
This Research Note outlines arguments used by opponents of euthanasia
for the terminally ill. However, not all opponents would support all the
arguments outlined below.
It is strongly recommended that this Research Note be read in conjunction
with its counterpart Research Note No. 12 1996-97, Choice, Quality of
Life and Self-Control-Summary Arguments in Support of Euthanasia. Also
recommended are Parliamentary Research Service Research Papers No's 3
and 4 1996-97, Euthanasia-the Australian Law in an International Context-Part
1: Passive Voluntary Euthanasia; Euthanasia-the Australian Law in an International
Context-Part 2: Active Voluntary Euthanasia and the Bills Digest for the
Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996.
Some Definitions
The term 'euthanasia' means a quiet and easy death. The term is often
divided into categories such as the following:
- passive voluntary euthanasia-where medical treatment is withdrawn
or withheld from a patient at that patient's request and death results.
- active voluntary euthanasia-where medical intervention is sought
by a patient in order to end their own life.
- passive involuntary euthanasia-where medical treatment is withheld
in order to cause death, but the withholding of treatment is not at
the patient's request.
- active involuntary euthanasia-where medical intervention brings about
a patient's death, and the intervention is not at the patient's request.
The Sanctity of Life
Christianity and many other doctrines/creeds hold that God is the creator
of the universe and as such, all of creation, including human life, is
a gift from God. Reverence for God's creation requires refraining from
any unnecessary and wilful destruction of that creation. Euthanasia is
the intentional and premature killing of a human being.
Human life is of such basic value that the state has a duty to protect
it from intentional killing. The state has no moral right to legalise
active or passive euthanasia as though it would affect only the individuals
involved.
Human Right
That the right to die is a human right is a fallacious argument. Opponents
of euthanasia argue that a right to die in the euthanasia context is a
right to be killed. 'A right to be killed would infer that another person
could respond to a request for induced death, so that it also necessarily
supposes another right, the right of another person to kill when asked.
Neither of these claims has ever been recognised in law or ethics, and
neither is self-evident.' (B. Pollard, The Many Sides of Euthanasia, Quadrant,
v. 35(12) Dec 1991: 44 and 45.)
Personal Autonomy
In a liberal democratic society people have the right to make choices
in accordance with their own values. Liberal democratic societies recognise
this fact by restricting a citizen's autonomy only when it is required
for the common good or to protect individuals from harm. The duty of the
state to protect the life of all its citizens justifies limiting citizens'
autonomy.
The Slippery Slope
There are a number of difficulties with statutory recognition of voluntary
euthanasia. The first is the potential for abuse/coercion of the frail
and vulnerable, failure to abide by legal procedures and subtle pressures
by family members. The second, it is argued, is an inevitable progression
to voluntary euthanasia to those not suffering from a terminal illness,
and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia.
It is also argued that inevitable progression to acceptance of involuntary
euthanasia might result from a general devaluing of human life. It might
also occur as a result of the spiralling costs of health care and palliative
care. Could euthanasia become a tolerable substitute for proper health
care?
In this view the case of the Netherlands shows that involuntary euthanasia
inevitably follows from active voluntary euthanasia.
Palliative Care
Measures do exist to control adequately the pain and symptoms suffered
by the overwhelming majority of terminally ill patients and maintain their
quality of life. If a terminally ill patient is in distress then proper
palliative care is not being provided.
Palliative care ensures that the dying are provided with:
- effective relief from physical pain;
- psychological support;
- effective communication so that the patient and family can understand
what is happening, what treatments are available and their effects;
- incorporation of the terminally ill patient's family in the care
to the extent that the patient and the family wish and are capable of
fulfilling; and
- spiritual support to the extent that patient wishes.
Access to euthanasia may inhibit the development of good palliative
care services. Palliative care and the hospice movement are underdeveloped
in the Netherlands where euthanasia is openly practised.
Opinion Polls
Reliance is placed on public opinion by proponents of euthanasia. It
is argued that opinion polls are subject to manipulation, cannot provide
quality information about decision making for events which may occur in
the future and generally do not provide detailed questioning of respondents
about all aspects euthanasia (eg. what should happen with severely impaired
infants or legally incompetent adults).
|
