This blog post takes a deeper look at whether euthanasia is a right to a dignified death or a choice that can lead to a disregard for life and ethical confusion.
Euthanasia means artificially hastening death to alleviate the suffering of patients suffering from incurable diseases. As it is a sensitive issue related to human life, there has been an endless debate, and the 2009 Severance Hospital euthanasia case in particular heated up the issue of euthanasia in South Korea. Recently, the Digitinas Hospital has started to become known for its euthanasia. The Digitinas Hospital is a hospital that performs “active and voluntary euthanasia.” The expressions “active” and “voluntary” may be somewhat unfamiliar. Euthanasia comes in many forms, and it is very important to distinguish between the different forms, so before talking about the Digitinas Hospital, I would like to first explain the types of euthanasia.
Euthanasia can be broadly divided into two types depending on the method used to induce death. There is “active euthanasia,” which directly causes death using drugs, etc., and “passive euthanasia,” which uses life-sustaining devices such as ventilators and cardiopulmonary resuscitation to stop the use of such devices and naturally hasten the time of death. Euthanasia is also classified according to whether the patient has given consent or not. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia that is performed when the patient agrees to die freely without being coerced by others. On the other hand, involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia that is performed when the patient is unable to make his or her own choice about life and death.
Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic around the world. Recently, public opinion in Korea and abroad has been favorable to passive euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia. In a survey, 70% of respondents in Korea said they were in favor of passive euthanasia, and in France and New Zealand, 70-80% of the population was in favor of passive euthanasia. This is because the opinions that the right to self-determination over one’s death should be respected and that the right to happiness of patients and their guardians should not be sacrificed due to meaningless life-sustaining treatment are gaining strength. However, active euthanasia that takes away even the remaining lifespan and involuntary euthanasia that can be forcibly carried out by others are still banned in many countries. This is interpreted as due to the possibility of medical misjudgments, the possibility of abuse of good intentions, and the possibility of a growing trend of disregard for life.
There is a sharp conflict between the pro and anti sides on passive euthanasia or dignified death. The pro-euthanasia side argues that an individual has the right to his or her own body, life, and death, and that euthanasia is different from murder because it includes the right to choose one’s own death. They believe that the way to avoid ethical issues is to stop meaningless life-sustaining treatment and die naturally, which will reduce the economic burden on patients and their guardians and guarantee their right to happiness. The opposition presents their arguments based on the principle of the dignity of human life and the possibility of misdiagnosis, abuse, and misuse. They also worry that if the discussion of euthanasia or the discontinuation of meaningless life-sustaining treatment spreads, there is a risk that an external factor such as the economic situation may intervene and create a social atmosphere in which patients may be forced to die.
It is difficult to take a firm stance on the issue of euthanasia because it is impossible to prioritize either the goal of happiness or the absolute value of life. However, one can strongly oppose active euthanasia. This is because it is an act of forcibly depriving a person of the remainder of their life, which can be considered a form of murder. Active euthanasia cannot escape ethical issues because it is an artificial death rather than a natural death. Voluntary active euthanasia is similar to suicide, and involuntary active euthanasia is similar to homicide, and both cases are difficult to accept ethically and socially.
In this situation, the recent story of the Dignitas hospital in Switzerland has been a big shock. Dignitas is a hospital in Switzerland that specializes in assisting with euthanasia and was established to help terminally ill or incurable patients end their lives with dignity. Dignitas is derived from the Latin word “dignity,” which means “respect for one’s worth.” The hospital helps people facing death to end their lives with dignity. The hospital provides lethal doses of poison to patients who want to die by euthanasia, which is called “assisted suicide.” In fact, it is active euthanasia with the intervention of medical staff and has legal grounds. The legal basis for euthanasia posted on the hospital’s website is Article 115 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which reads as follows.
“Anyone who, with selfish motives, induces or helps another person to commit suicide in the event of an attempted or successful suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of five years.”
The hospital claims that it is not legally in trouble because it is helping suicide without selfish motives. The number of people who choose euthanasia at the Digitias Hospital is increasing every year, and in 2011, 144 people chose euthanasia at the hospital, and the cumulative number of people who have chosen euthanasia at the hospital has already exceeded 1,000. To receive euthanasia, a person must have a doctor’s confirmation that treatment is not possible, must have the ability to judge their own death, and must pay an admission fee and an annual membership fee to the hospital.
At Diginitas Hospital, a patient can legally commit suicide as long as a doctor determines that the patient’s condition is incurable. This is the most radical type of euthanasia, and it is even allowing euthanasia for foreigners, which is causing a great deal of controversy around the world. It is understandable how difficult it is for patients facing death to endure physical pain and despair. However, active euthanasia is an act of giving up even the rest of one’s life. From an existentialist perspective, death is inevitable and must be accepted humbly. If meaningless life-sustaining treatment goes against the nature of death, it can be even more of a contradiction to give up even the remaining life through active euthanasia at the Diginitas Hospital. When we consider the value of life, this can cause serious problems not only on an individual level but also on a societal level. For example, the fact that individuals can give up the rest of their lives according to their own choice can promote a trend of disregarding life, and the fact that there are many socially successful people at the Digitinas Hospital also shows the possibility of causing the Werther effect, i.e., mass suicide. In addition, there is still a risk of misdiagnosis, and there is also a risk of the system being abused, such as suicide attempts based on forged doctor’s opinions.
No matter how painful it is, the value of life cannot be compared to anything else. On an individual level, it is necessary to reflect on the value of life and understand the tragic consequences of giving up on life. It is important to create an environment that helps people make the right decisions, as it can be difficult to make the right decisions in extreme pain. If medical help is provided to relieve physical and mental pain, and a social atmosphere is created in which people can beautifully wrap up and finish their lives rather than committing suicide, no one will try to relieve their fear of death by taking extreme measures.
There is a saying that “even if you fall on dog dung, it’s better than this world.” This means that no matter how difficult life is, it is a happiness that cannot be compared to death and is a value that must be protected. People who choose euthanasia defend euthanasia by directly confronting this saying, claiming the “right to die.” Life is meaningful in and of itself, and life is only once.
