Voluntary Euthanasia: Why the law goes beyond ethics

The act of ending someones life at their request to set them free from endless suffering seems to be the most popular opinion in a universal discussion on voluntary euthanasia (where in 2015, 82% of the uk supported assisted dying[1]) and this in turn raises the question: If so many people advocate for it, why is it still illegal? Does ethics not have a vital role to play in its law?

When we consider what is morally right in this instance, it seems obvious that alleviating one’s intolerable pain is the most virtuous and appropriate decision to make but, legally speaking, moral philosophy is not enough of a motivation for reform. All is well when only the benefits are considered but not many review what actually happens when we open up our laws and the inescapable problems come rushing in. In an ideal world allowing the terminally ill to die with dignity, and following through with patient autonomy, appears to be the most reasonable judgment. However, we live in a society where the problems that come with the legalisation of euthanasia outweigh its solutions; which is why we must not let our sentiments guide us but instead put less emphasis on ethics and form our opinions with a legalistic point of view.

One of the most pressing legal matters surrounding the possible legalisation of voluntary euthanasia is that of safeguards. When there is danger of escalation, these would be put in place in order to protect those who are vulnerable to social pressures.The elderly, for example, may feel a moral obligation to lift a ‘burden’ from their families even though they don’t suffer so much themselves or even want to die in the first place. Not only does this fundamentally alter how we view society, by undermining the value of life as a whole; but it also calls into question: How can we create such safety nets to avoid inevitable issues such as these? It just doesn’t seem possible to do so. There is no indefinite procedure that can steer clear of these concerns especially when our courts are still flooded with cases of domestic violence, elder abuse and child abuse that get missed by safety net systems[2] regularly. This is not a minor affair and we cannot risk its possibility as it is truly a matter of life and death.

It has also been neglected to realise that with its legalisation it may subconsciously affect the practice of doctors. Because it is illegal, it encourages health professionals to try their best to relieve pain and other aspects of a person’s suffering but it is uncertain that this would still take a physician’s main priority if the law is changed; they may very well place their efforts elsewhere[3]. Almost like if a student is studying because they know they have exams but then circumstances arise causing them not go forth with the examinations. It would most likely cause them to stop working as hard because they know there is another end to their means and giving up is the easier, more understandable option. Here, Death would be easier and cheaper than care and treatment. Although this is a rather cynical approach it is not to say that it’s unrealistic, because it is very much matter of fact. Whether or not the doctor realises, it is human nature to be unknowingly influenced by such factors. Moreover, if euthanasia were regarded as an acceptable solution to medical issues then it would ultimately result in detrimental effects on medical progression and that alone is taking a step back in time when the aim is to push forward.

Another crucial factor that exceeds peoples thoughts is that euthanasia obliquely sends the message that life is not worth living. If it becomes legal, it creates a precedent that will extend to those who do not suffer from terminal illness but from other disabilities and illnesses, especially mental conditions, that do not take them to the end stage of their lives. This is a rare case where the law and morality can work hand in hand as it is clear to even the most simple people that this is wrong; it puts forth the idea that ‘suicide is acceptable’ which risks sending a mixed message especially regarding the tragedy of youth suicide and in turn creates a confusing double standard about ending one’s life.[4] This idea also takes advantage of those who are at their most fragile state of mind and looking for a way out which voluntary euthanasia dangerously provides. It gives them an option to not seek help which is the worst thing a society can do for a struggling member. Help must be the default and dying without consultation should never be an alternative.

And so, the law must go beyond ethically thinking because in the real, rational world the outcomes of reform only make way for more extensive issues. All these components, and many more, are the few reasons that contribute to the current legal stance of the UK parliament; voluntary euthanasia does not countenance the taking of life and rightfully so.

---

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/03/legalise-assisted-dying-for-terminally-ill-say-90-per-cent-of-people-in-uk [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k301/rr-21 [3] https://euthanasiadebate.org.nz/some-reasons-why-assisted-suicide-and-euthanasia-should-not-be-legal/ [4] https://euthanasiadebate.org.nz/some-reasons-why-assisted-suicide-and-euthanasia-should-not-be-legal/