Should euthanasia be legal or illegal in the UK? Is there more to it than just the matter of being legal?

Jimin Park

“To save a man’s life against his will is the same as killing him” 

Originated in Greece, the word euthanasia means ‘good death’; deliberate advancement of a person’s death for the benefit of that person and that of the family. While some may equate this with suicide (when self-administered) or even murder (when performed by another), the core fact remains that it involves ending a human life. However, is it more humane to preserve the life of a terminally ill patient, forcing them to endure prolonged agony? Is it fair to subject their family to the torment of witnessing their loved one deteriorate beyond recognition? Should the state and its laws have the authority to overrule deeply personal family decisions? This article advocates that euthanasia can be morally justified under strict regulations and, if legalized in the UK, would enhance individual autonomy and the right to a dignified life.

According to The Asian Age, “Out of the 196 countries in the world, 9 countries had legalized euthanasia, including Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Albania and the US.” (2018) These nations impose strict criteria for euthanasia to ensure it is conducted responsibly. For instance, Canada has allowed euthanasia under the condition that consent needs to consistently be expressed, not implied. Similarly, in the Netherlands, euthanasia is permitted only when the patient is enduring unbearable suffering, with minimal to no hope of improvement, as determined by a medical professional. These regulations ensure that euthanasia, while permitted, is tightly controlled, safeguarding against misuse and ensuring that the practice remains compassionate and ethical.

Some argue that euthanasia is a discourtesy towards the dignity of human life and hence immoral. This may be true but only when the consideration in priority is solely the duration of life. However, quality of life is just as important as its length. In other words, when the person’s quality of life becomes indistinguishable from torture due to excessive pain caused by a condition, merely extending the length of life cannot be viewed as a way of valuing life: it is not living what people call a ‘sacred life’. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “Everyone has the right to live like a human being.” This includes living with rights and guaranteed human dignity. Nevertheless, where it is impossible to find a cure or treatment with the modern technology, individuals should not be forced to endure prolonged suffering. This can be recognized as violation of human rights. Therefore, euthanasia should be legally permitted under strict conditions to assure human rights, and the act does not neglect life, but rather promises human dignity. Moreover, if humans have the right and control over how they live their life, in the equal way, they should have the equal right and control over how they end their life, whether it would be through assisted death or not.

Critics argue that euthanasia is a murder, asserting that it is not moral to end a life as everyone has the right to live as long as possible. Some of them base this claim on rare cases of unexpected recovery such as Victoria Arlen, a former American Paralympian swimmer who woke up from 4 years of vegetative state and gradually retrieved her motor skills. While such cases demonstrate the potential of recovery, they are extremely rare. It is not just nor humane to put patients and their families in psychological pain in the hope that a terminally ill person may recover. Additionally, this would also bring up the economic burden of sustaining life of an unconscious person with many costly life supplies and additional hospital fees becoming a financial strain on guardians.

Euthanasia cannot be equated with murder or suicide as its purpose is fundamentally different. The form of moral euthanasia advocated here applies to patients experiencing both unbearable physical and mental pain with little prospect of relief. While suicide may be avoidable with mental consultation with psychiatrists, a person could still choose to commit suicide and this will bring huge depression and sorrow for the relatives. Unlike suicide, which can bring about sudden grief and shock, euthanasia enables families to prepare for the last moment. Thus, it is a significant misjudgment to consider euthanasia in same terms as murder or suicide.

All of this links to the ethical principles of medical practice. The principle of non-maleficence asserts that "a doctor ought not to inflict evil or harm or bring his patients into the risk of evil or harm." With rapidly advancing technology, doctors today are able to provide life-prolonging care. With these options available, one view of non-maleficence states that doctors are to preserve their patients’ lives regardless of the quality of those lives. However, the opposing view holds that the medical interventions cause the true harm to the patient through prolonged or more intense suffering, which includes the act of not permitting euthanasia. Beneficence, the obligation to act in the patient’s best interest, further complicates this issue. In cases of euthanasia, is it more beneficial to follow a patient’s wish to die with dignity, or continue life-prolonging treatments? Autonomy plays a crucial role in this debate, though it may be limited when patients cannot provide consent or lack capacity, such as in cases of vegetative states.

In conclusion, euthanasia is ultimately about choices and decision-making. Whether it is the patient or their family making the decision, the right to choose should be respected. While the government should have restrictions and requirements to ensure the practice is safe and ethical, they should not have the authority to have control over life-choices. Government is in charge of the state, but does not have the right over every individual’s life. Citizens of the state has the right to choose; the right to life should not be controlled by the government. Restricting euthanasia within the country denies citizens their autonomy in choosing how to end their life. Therefore, legalizing euthanasia would enhance the protection and provision of human rights in many countries. However, although it is crucial to consider the legality of euthanasia, there are other important aspects to address including psychological health, quality of life, and above all, the human rights. In advocating for euthanasia to be legal, we must always prioritize the more humane considerations over strict legal restrictions and binary debates on the right or the wrong.