1. Vital 1
Jose Vital
S. Hackney
English 102
2, April, 2013
Euthanasia: Permissible or Impermissible
Life is often noted as being precious; something that many wish to preserve for
themselves and their children, but when we look at abortion it is mainly turned down because it
is said that a fetus is a person with rights as soon as conception. When the subject is made about
the right to take someone’s own life then it becomes a more complex argument. Literally
meaning a “good death,” euthanasia is a topic that has been argued from the permissible and
impermissible spectrum. Those in support of this practice believe euthanasia should be a viable
option for individuals who suffer from incurable diseases. The proponents of euthanasia teach
that once a patient’s quality of life has degenerated to an unacceptable level, a patient has the
right to end his life. Those who oppose euthanasia believe it to be unjustified in the sense that it
is the taking of someone’s life, therefore making it immoral. However this is a decision made by
one’s own free will, a choice that should be respected by members of society, especially when
the person is plagued with a terminal illness that will certainly reach a point of intolerable pain.
Although others argue a hospice a more viable choice the patient will still feel discomfort, even
with aid of pain killers. In all euthanasia is something that shouldn’t be kept in the dark, since it
is something that many people are seeking even without the help of a doctor, which should press
more states to legalize the practice of it.
When discussing whether euthanasia should be permitted we first have to look at the
patients concerns and reasons for wanting early death. Looking at a few patients’ reasons for

2. Vital 2
wanting to be euthanized could reveal other motives that isn’t as obvious as wanting to end their
pain suffering. A study done on 6 patients with advanced cancer expressed five reasons for
desiring euthanasia: knowing the progression of the disease, future suffering, fearing that their
future will be worse than death, wanting good care to end their life’s, and maintaining their
dignity(Yvonne Y. W. Mak, Glyn Elwyn, and llora G. Finlay). This study shows that there are
other factors that motivate the end of life treatment, motives that are rational in the case of being
terminally. Patients with terminal illnesses are aware that their conditions will worsen and
become unbearable, even before their illness envelopes the patients’ deal with psychological
issues, considering the themes presented, that make them question their lives for what it was
then, and what it will become when the disease takes over. Wanting to maintain and preserve
ones quality of life through euthanasia should then be taken positively, since it deprives them of
a life that will surely bring them more pain and suffering. An issue that present in the choice one
takes to end their life to stop pain and suffering, is that it may not actually be that person’s
choice. Opponents of euthanasia argue that, “for active or passive euthanasia to be voluntary the
patient must freely will that his or her life be ended” (Campbell). It should be clear that in order
to qualify for euthanasia a patient must have a pending terminal illness, and must be choice of
his own, but my opponent seems to think “the decision to die is not freely chosen, but compelled
by pain” (Campbell). One of the main obvious reasons a terminally ill person would choose
euthanasia is to stop their pain and suffering, so of course their choice would be compelled by
pain. Campbell’s example of a victim of torture begs to differ, saying that someone spilling
secretes do to torture is parallel to someone taking the choice of euthanasia do to pain. The
distinction here is that someone who chooses to end their suffering through euthanasia is
compelled by an internal issue, as to where someone who chooses to end their suffering by

3. Vital 3
telling there torturer what they want to know, is compelled by an external issue. The subject
matter also remains different in this comparison, since the person’s illness is not prolonged by an
outside force that seeks to attain information; it is an incurable disease that has no motive, no self
concept, and no reason to prolong a person’s pain, it’s only certain that it will end the person’s
life. So given the person’s circumstances it would only be reasonable that the person take the
procedure’s to make his death a peaceful one.
Further distinction must also be made in the active physician’s role in euthanasia and the
killing of a person. There must be a line drawn between killing, and euthanasia, for it is often
mistaken by its opponents’ to be murder. In the case of murder the murderer did not have the
consent to kill the person, and therefore is unlawful. Unlike killing, which infers there is
violence, and the presence of a victim, euthanasia has the consent of the person, so that a trained
physician can take his life, in what some consider, a practical and humane manner. As John
Davis says in his article, it is an inappropriate use of the word, when the patient is asking in
aiding him or her die. The issue is that it presses many to think of euthanasia in a negative light.
When we consider what makes killing wrong and what makes euthanasia right, we can argue that
it is the person’s consent that makes all the difference, but that can’t be all that’s needed.
Consider a middle aged woman who aided her elderly friend in her suicide, and a license
physician who gives a large dose of morphine to a dying cancer patient (Davis). Which is more
impermissible? Well one would certainly agree that although the middle aged women had her
friends consent, but she had no right to help in the suicide, especially without proper training,
and others can agree that the doctor had good intentions, and ended the patient’s life humanely.
So what also has to be considered in euthanasia is the humane process that takes place. Usually a
humane death is one that is free of suffering, one that ends a person’s life in a peaceful manner,

4. Vital 4
and euthanasia certainly offers that. Of course there are differences between active and passive
euthanasia, passive euthanasia being the less humane. This is where the patient might refuse
treatment, food or water, and might use gases and paper bags to end their lives (Methods of
Euthanasia). This course is usually taken when the patient see’s no better choice put to end his
life. If more forms of active euthanasia were offered less people would have to resort to such
destructive means of ending their lives. It could also be argued that the active role that the doctor
plays in the patient’s death undermines the trust that the patient, and public put in its health
institutions that are supposed to provide health and welfare for its patients (Kerridge and
Mitchell). Although it can be said to undermine the patient’s trust, in regards to the doctor not
fulfilling his duties as a healer, it is still within the patients’ rights to ask if such treatments are
offered to him.
Whether a dying patient should want to end their life early is an autonomous choice, and
to deny them this right is unreasonable. When there are treatments that patients might consider,
but are withheld due to restriction in the unified public plan, is denying them a right that is
offered to every individual in their debilitating situation (Ikonomidis and singer). Not giving
everyone equal rights to treatment, infers that one is incompetent to make his own decision, and
further implies that he will make the irresponsible one. A person’s physical illness does not
render that him incompetent to make decision, more than likely it gives him a realistic
assessment of his situation, and allows him to decide the overall wellbeing of his family, and
himself. Determining whether a patient is competent enough to make the decision towards
euthanasia leaves room, but what must be considered is that there are measures taken to evaluate
the person decision before going through with the procedure. In Ian H. Kerridge’s and Kenneth

5. Vital 5
R. Mitchell’s article they include the processes that the patient and doctor must evaluate before
treatment:
the patient is at least 18 years and the medical practitioner is satisfied reasonably that:(i)
the patient is suffering from an illness that, in the normal course of events result in the
death of the patient; (ii) there is no medical measure acceptable to the patient that can
reasonably be undertaken in hope of effecting a cure, and, (iii) any medical treatment
reasonably available to the patient is confined to the rest of pain and/or suffering with the
object of allowing the patient to die a comfortable death; a second medical practitioner,
has examined the patient and confirmed; (i) the first medical practitioner's opinion as to
the existence and seriousness of the illness ; (ii) that the patient is likely to dies as a result
of the illness; (iii) the first medical practitioner prognosis: and (iv) that the patient is not
suffering from a treatable clinical depression in respect of the illness; the illness is
causing the patient severe pain or suffering.
Given this assessment, the patient is aware of his incurable illness, and can be confident
in going through with his end of life treatment. It was also made clear that the patient must be 18
to even be allowed treatment. Looking at the particulars of the process, this surely goes against
the autonomy of the patient, and can be seen as an unjustified means to prevent treatment. It is
unjustified in the sense that other patients with the same illness get treatment, but due to the
person’s age, he is refused treatment. It could also be categorized as discrimination towards a
person’s civil rights, but because it is not a right given to everyone it wouldn’t actually fall under
that category. So what is relevant to this situation is that person is simply too young to make
such a rash decision, and if the argument made is that a young person’s life is more valuable,
than an old person’s life it must be supported by evidence. Of course there can be no evidence

6. Vital 6
brought forth to prove this statement to be true, so there is no good reason to even deny someone
under 18 that right. It is prevalent that people way below the age of 18 gets diagnosed with a
terminal illness, which is no more curable than someone with a terminal illness above or at the
age of 18. So when patients’ are diagnosed with a terminal illness they most certainly should
have the right to euthanasia, since they are likely to suffer the same pain as any other patient with
their illness.
People are afraid that if euthanasia were legalized it would send a negative message that
indirectly says "it's better to be dead than sick or disabled" (Allowing euthanasia reinforces). It
makes people uneasy when they believe the subtext of the euthanasia is that all lives are not
worth living. The point that opponents try to make is that persons with disabilities go through
much pain and suffering, and some are even ostracized by society, which will lead to the
elimination of disabled people. In an article, Ben Mattlin describes his experience with a lifelong
disability, and opposes the death with dignity law because he believes people like him will be
forced to end their lives (The Debate About Assisted Suicide). Whether the patient is disabled is
beside the point, euthanasia is only offered to those with an incurable illness that will surely end
their life, not someone who is disabled, and who can manage their misery with counseling. First I
would like to state that the regular procedure of euthanasia has to be requested by the patient.
Secondly a person who is disabled is just as capable as an able-bodied on making decisions, even
if they are not mentally impaired. Third of all are laws that restrict the treatment of mentally
impaired person. Fourth of all psychological support is provided to those who are disabled, who
may want to chose euthanasia. Therefore all people should have the equal right to live, and the
choice to end their lives. What some of the opponents don’t understand about euthanasia is that
it is not the first thing offered to a patient; the doctor will first offer the choice of palliative care,

7. Vital 7
which “is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible”
(What is palliative care?). This is used to promote the wellness of the patient and reduce the
patient’s desire to die sooner. When palliative care is not enough it would be in the doctors best
interest to offer euthanasia. Doctors reveal that only about 5% of the patient’s pain is relieved
during his treatment (Anti-euthanasia arguments). That is a very small margin for the patient to
feel any better, so it is obvious why they would turn to euthanasia. Palliative care can seem like a
good support system, but it can lead many patients to prefer death over dependency. To many it
means surrendering time with their family at home, for a lonely hospital bed. It also brings a loss
of alertness, when it comes time for the patient to pass, and say goodbye to their loved one.
When the person undertakes they take aggrandized amount of pills that can make them feel semi-
anaesthetized, which most patients find stressful when they want to have coherent conversations
with their loved the ones. Although palliative care can be useful in the first stages of the patient’s
illness, it provides very little help in the end stages of their illness. After a patient life has been
prolonged father than expected, it would be respectful to that person’s autonomy and dignity if
they be left to die, regardless any treatment providing comfort.
Arguing the permissibility of euthanasia can end in a slippery slope, but when you
consider the onslaught of issues the person with a terminal illness must live with, from the time
of hearing of his or her illness, through the time that the illness has taken its toll, it is

8. Vital 8
understandable why it should be permissible. Even if there is an opportunity to further a person’s
life expectancy, the right to end his or her life should not be denied. Once a person is fully aware
of their fatal illness, then that person is competent enough to go through with end to life
treatment, regardless of their age. It should be made clear that the decision for euthanasia is one
taken after all hope of improving a person’s health is gone without a reasonable doubts that there
isn’t a cure. With this kind of practice the person can preserve what little good life they had
before. With so many people already seeking help from professional and unprofessional
physicians, it should become apparent to other anti-euthanasia jurisdictions, that this is a problem
that will persist until it is made available to the people.

9. Vital 9
Works Cited
Campbell, Neil . "An Problem for the Idea of Voluntary Euthanasia." Journal of Medical
Ethics 25.3 (1999): 242-244. Print.
"BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Anti-euthanasia arguments." BBC - Homepage. N.p., n.d.
Web. 16 Apr. 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml#h10>.
Davies, Jean . "Raping and Making Love are Different Concepts: So Are Killing and
Voluntary Euthanasia." Journal of Medical Ethics 14.3 (1988): 148-149. Print.
“- Euthanasia - ProCon.org." Euthanasia - ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.
<http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000181htt
Kerridge, Ian , and Kenneth Mitchell . "The Legislation of Active Voluntary Euthanasia
in Australia: Will the Slippery Slope Prove Fatal?." Journal of Medical Ethics 22.5 (1996): 273-
278. JSTOR. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.
Mak,, Yvonne , Glyn Elwyn, and Ilora Finlay. "Patients' Voices Are Needed In Debates
On Euthanasia." British Medical Journal 327.7408 (2003): 213-215. JSTOR. Web. 26 Feb. 2013.
"Methods of Euthanasia | The Life Resources Charitable Trust." Home. N.p., n.d. Web.
16 Apr. 2013. <http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/abouteuthanasia/methods-of-euthanasia/>.

10. Vital 10
Sklansky, Mark. "Neonatal Euthanasia: Moral Considerations and Criminal Liability." Journal of
Medical Ethics 27.1 (2001): 5-11. Print.
"The Debate About Assisted Suicide." The New York Times 4 Nov. 2012: 2. The New
York Times. Web. 18 Mar. 2013