This blog post examines the ethical debate over euthanasia to end the suffering of terminally ill patients and the balance between life and dignity.
Let’s assume this situation. One of your family members has an incurable disease. He is in great pain every day, and current medical technology has no cure. Your family is faced with the question of whether it is worth keeping him alive or whether it is better to help him end his life comfortably. At this moment, we are faced with a profound ethical dilemma about life, dignity, and when humans have the right to decide when to die. Euthanasia, or the means to end a life suffering from an incurable disease, has been at the center of debate in countries around the world for decades.
Euthanasia is a way to relieve suffering, but it is also an act of artificially ending human life. The term “euthanasia” comes from the Greek word “ευθανασία,” which means a beautiful death. Euthanasia refers to the act of ending a life to relieve suffering in situations where treatment is deemed meaningless due to an incurable disease, and it is often known as a dignified death.
Euthanasia can be divided into various types depending on whether the patient consents or not and how it is performed. First, there is “voluntary euthanasia,” which is performed when the patient consents to his or her own death, and “involuntary euthanasia,” which is performed without the patient’s consent. Voluntary euthanasia is only performed when the patient has made the decision on their own, and it is more ethically acceptable in that it respects the patient’s will. On the other hand, involuntary euthanasia is a way of ending a life by the decision of others when the patient is unable to make decisions, and is not permitted in many countries due to ethical issues.
Euthanasia is also divided into “active euthanasia” and “passive euthanasia” depending on the method of causing death. Active euthanasia is a method of directly causing death to a patient by injecting a lethal substance or poison. This is the most controversial method of euthanasia, and it is only legally permitted in some countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands. For example, in the Netherlands, doctors can actively euthanize a patient if they are in extreme pain and have clearly expressed their consent to death. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is a method of allowing a patient to die naturally by stopping general treatment or devices to prolong life. This method is relatively less controversial because it can reduce the patient’s suffering, but it is still a difficult choice from the perspective of medical ethics and the family.
The legalization of euthanasia has been discussed for a long time, and some countries have legalized voluntary euthanasia, but there is still a heated debate over whether it should be legalized. Proponents of euthanasia argue that it is an act of respecting human dignity as a way to provide a peaceful death for patients suffering from extreme pain. On the other hand, I am opposed to the legalization of euthanasia. Euthanasia is an act that downplays human life, and artificially ending life in the name of alleviating suffering ultimately disregards the value of life.
First, euthanasia has the risk of treating life like an object and leading to an attitude that overlooks the preciousness of life. Humans are given the opportunity to live from the moment they are born, and death is a natural process that cannot be artificially determined. No human has the right to take another human’s life intentionally. Even if a patient is in extreme pain, it is the basic ethics of humanity and the role of medicine to try to alleviate that pain as much as medically possible. In fact, doctors are constantly developing various methods of alleviating pain, and they argue that these treatments can be a more humane solution than euthanasia. Euthanasia is only the easiest way to end a human life quickly, and relying on it can lead to a problem of downplaying human life.
On the other hand, although they claim voluntary euthanasia, in reality patients are very emotionally and psychologically weak. They can easily make pessimistic choices due to economic burdens and psychological pressure, and they may voluntarily choose euthanasia because they feel that they have become a burden to their families. However, in reality, patients are not really seeking death, but rather support and comfort from their loved ones. If family members show that they understand the patient’s pain and work to restore their health, the patient will regain hope for life and feel less depressed about death. Therefore, it is more important than anything else to support and comfort the patient so that they can regain a sense of meaning and purpose in life.
Terminating a patient’s life is not the only solution. A doctor’s job is not to kill people, but to “kill” their pain. Proposing euthanasia results in the neglect of medical technology and medical achievements. Allowing patients the right to die also gives doctors the right to decide when to die. If there is an increase in the number of cases where life-prolonging devices are removed or patients are neglected, this will be another example of disregard for life. Modern medicine is constantly evolving, and new treatments are being developed for even diseases that were once considered incurable. For example, in the case of a patient with a brain hemorrhage, there was almost no chance of recovery if the patient was in critical condition 20 years ago, but now, thanks to the development of medical devices and surgical techniques, many cases of recovery are being reported. As such, even for diseases that are currently difficult to treat, there is a good chance that a solution will be found in the future. Ending suffering will not be achieved through death, but through proper treatment and patient support.
Currently, only a few countries, including the United States, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, have legalized voluntary euthanasia. However, if euthanasia is legalized in more countries, many ethical issues will arise. For example, some doctors may choose to reduce costs rather than the effectiveness of treatment, rather than alleviating the suffering of patients. This will eventually lead to the implementation of euthanasia without responsibility, and it may even lead to the termination of life based solely on the decision of the family without the consent of the patient. Euthanasia will lead to the devaluation of human life and irresponsible treatment of human life.
Therefore, we must be wary of the legalization of euthanasia and provide suffering patients with the opportunity to live. Rather than euthanasia, we should seek various treatments that can alleviate the pain of patients and help them spend their remaining time with their families and lead meaningful lives. Life is dignified in itself, and the act of artificially ending life is a taboo that humans should not challenge.
