Society On The Issue Of Assisted Suicide example essay topic

"There are good moral reasons why self-determining autonomous people, at the end of their lives and in the face of great suffering, should be able to request active help in dying from doctors willing to provide it (Age, 18 February, 1993). Euthanasia is nor an enlightening experience to endure or discuss, however this topic has and will persevere to affect society until a balance between morality and human rights is struck. In Australia, the current legislation governing issues with regards to Euthanasia does not legally allow assisted suicide. It is time to consider whether the current legislation is out dated and should be amended to meet the ever-changing moralistic values of today's society. Morality and religion are perhaps the two most influential elements in the argument on euthanasia. The question must be asked, should we support it or not?

The 2002 poll is indicative of the current social position on assisted suicide. The polling by Roy Morgan Research revealed that more than 70% supported the idea that the current legislation should be amended to allow for voluntary euthanasia, with just 23% saying they thought, "there was sufficient palliative care available for the terminally ill". Palliative is defined as something (such as a sedative drug) which is used to lessen the severity of pain or disease without actually curing (No Easy Way Out, 1993). Assuming that the poll was not influenced by bias, the poll is evidential of the change in social values from the previous anti-euthanasia movement.

What moralistic and religious issues however, have divided society on the issue of assisted suicide? I believe that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized merely through moral justification. If a patient is terminally ill and can no longer sustain an enjoyable quality of life, what moral right does the constitution have to take away their freedom of choice over their own life? The government has set its laws in place to counter the threat of abuse and "convenience murders", however the laws do not adequately cater for human rights. If a patient is assessed, and has no chance of recovery, and has a quality of life, which they deem to be unlivable, they should be able to legally utilize the assistance of a second party such as a medical practitioner to assist in their suicide. Some people believe that to hasten death is immoral, however if they have not been in such a situation where they have felt they no longer wished to live, then they themselves can not determine what is morally correct in such an instance.

The morality in question should be left solely to the party involved to determine whether they live or die. The author of No Easy Way Out, The Euthanasia Debate states that the legal system must make adjustments, realising that we do not live in a vitalist society where the preservation of life takes precedence over all other values. The saying, "you wouldn't do it to your dog" suits the euthanasia debate perfectly. The saying means that if a dog was suffering extreme pain, outweighing the enjoyments of life, then you would not withhold assistance in ending a life without enjoyment, which is not true life itself. The religious element in the euthanasia debate is contradictory.

Most religious groups, including Christianity do not object to passive euthanasia, however firmly object to active euthanasia, being the actual killing of a sick person, or performing actions to quicken their death. The actual taking of life is how some religions differentiate their opinions between passive and active euthanasia. Their main view is that no one other than God should have the right to take life, or in other words "play god". This viewpoint however gives rise to contradiction. Consider this scenario: a doctor may bring a person back to life once they were officially dead, or take steps to extend their life, and this is acceptable, however if they assist in killing an ill patient who gives consent, they are interfering with God. Is bringing people back from death not interfering with God?

The belief that all life must be preserved and subjected to any measures, which may preserve it holds no backing in moral value. Society should not focus on the extension of life, but rather on the quality of life and the well being of the patient (No Easy Way Out). There is clearly room for amendments to the current legislation governing euthanasia. Assisted suicide should be legalized, however the laws must be under strict control to counter abuse of the system.

If a patient is terminally ill, and is able to give consent not under duress, then they should be able to be aided in their death. Perhaps the laws should only allow assisted suicide if a J.P. or medical practitioner is present. Beneficiaries under the patient's will should also not be the final arbiters, minimising the chance of abuse of euthanasia. The legal system should realise that if someone is so desperate to cease living, and require assistance in doing so, why should the assistant to the suicide be punished of a crime, when their only crime is being humane? I strongly support the euthanasia movement.

It is a crime against humanity to strip someone of the freedom to end their own life prematurely if they are only going to suffer until they die naturally. Euthanasia should be fully supported, given that the grey areas are taken into account in any amendments to the current legislation. To deny euthanasia, is to defy morality.

Bibliography

Journals 1. A Time for Dying, The Bulletin, 24 Sep 02 2. One-way Ticket, Time Australia, 14 Oct 02 3. The Secret Life Of Angels, Time Australia, 25 March 02 Books 1. No Easy Way Out, The Euthanasia Debate, Robert Gott and Richard Linden, CIS Publishers 1993..