Essay

Theme: Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a word which derives from the greek word that signifies good death and it first
was encountered in the description made by the historian Suetonius, of the way that the great emperor
Augustus met his end in the hands of his beloved wife Livia, dying quickly and without any suffering
as he had wished for. This pretty much gives out the definition of euthanasia, which is an act or the
practice of putting an end to suffering and relieving pain through the intentional ending of someones
life. It is a subject that is heavily debated in recent years, whether we can allow and legalize such a
procedure, whether we can accept it and control it as to prevent abuse, whether is this an act that is
defying God and all its creations etc. Euthanasia is such a controversial topic for obvious reasons the
life of a human being is the supreme value of every society around the world (well, every democratic
society, the vast majority), it is the value which the state should and is obligated to protect, and taking
all that into consideration should we allow a law that allows certain medical practitioners to take
someones life through a lethal injection or gas? Are we talking about the same supreme value which
the state is obliged to defend? But at the same time, isnt euthanasia the moral and merciful thing to do
when the person is conscious about his decision about wanting and requesting an end to his suffering,
to relieve the pain created by the terminal illness he may suffer? Shouldnt a person be allowed to die
with dignity? Controversial, isnt it? There is no universally accepted opinion regarding this topic as
there are many arguments on one side and the other, those that are pro euthanasia and against
euthanasia, so in this essay I shall reveal and focus on my own opinion and analysis which is based on
the research Ive done and on my own perception and convictions.
Besides the fact that euthanasia is such a sensible subject, its practice has not began in our
present times, as history shows, but it comes up as a major dabble in the present as to how or if we
should allow this procedure to be regulated, permitted by law. Many great personalities met their end
through euthanasia though, for example Sigmund Freud, who died at the age of 83 years, in London,
1939, with the assistance of a physician by inducing an overdose of morphine. It is mentioned in the
Hippocratic Oath that each medical practitioner must take, that doctors should first relieve suffering,
pain and second that they should prolong the life of people, but in the case of a terminally ill pacient,
by relieving the suffering would mean ending his life and by prolonging his life it would mean also the
prolonging of his suffering and pain. From this point of view, medical practitioners are faced with a
huge dilemma. I personally think that the human being is the supreme form of evolution till now and
that through our intellect and conscience, we co-exist and are able to control certain aspects of our life,
having the ability to self-determine on our course of actions, poetically speaking our fate. The human
race is not without flaws, being subjected unfortunately to many maladies, diseases, illnesses to which
we havent found a cure yet, but by co-existing in a society of individuals, we survive through them
and are trying to handle them as humane as possible. So shouldnt an individual be allowed to choose
whether he wants to die a peaceful, painless death, to alleviate his pain and to be granted the wish to die
because theres no decent quality of life for him anymore? I am only pro euthanasia, but solely in its
pure theoretical theory, considering it as a noble act, an option that each human being should have in
case of reaching such a point when theres no quality of life, when the pain and suffering cannot be
cured, stopped. Its legal to pull off a feeding tube, to take someone off life support machines and starve
them to death but helping someone who conscientiously requests the ending of his pains isnt? But,
analyzing this, in the long run, lets also think about the misconception in case of allowing euthanasia
when people might come to fear the doctors as instead of willing to treat someone, thered also be some
doctors willing to end lives. Society is simply not ready yet, but in a utopian one, euthanasia would not
be an issue. Its the practical part that got us entangled in various dilemmas, especially when the human
life is at stake. Even if it is illegal in most states, some have taken the initiative by legalizing
euthanasia, although its worth mentioning that not all form of euthanasia, only the voluntary

euthanasia or the so-called physician assisted suicides are legal in some countries, non-voluntary
euthanasia is illegal throughout the world and involuntary euthanasia is considered as murder and is
just plainly wrong in my opinion, its exactly the opposite of the true purpose of this procedure its
like stating that Hitler was just ending the jews suffering from being jews. There are also two different
variants of euthanasia, another subramification: active euthanasia and passive one. Active euthanasia
implies the fact that it is done by administering lethal substances or forces directly, the passive one
implying the fact that it is simply done by refraining, withholding of the common treatments that are
required to continue life. All of that being said, it is now time to discuss certain cases and people that
have a great impact on this topic. I must mention the physician that shocked the world through his
dedication to this cause Jack Kevorkian, coined Dr. Death because of the very large number of
patients whom he helped through physician assisted suicide (at least 130 patients). His actions brought
the attention of the world on the controversial subject of euthanasia. Kevorkian was motivated to
support and practice euthanasia because of his mother, whom he thought he had failed. She suffered
from a disease which she described as such: imagine Jack, the worst toothache in the world; now
imagine that toothache being in every bone of your body. He was convicted of second-degree murder
in the fifth time he was tried, because of the broadcast on CBS News 60 minutes, Kevorkian
permitting to be showed on air a videotape in which he effectuates an active euthanasia, inducing a
lethal substance to Thomas Youk who was suffering of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a terrible disease
which destroys gradually all of the muscle activity in the body. Why is this particular case so different
you may ask, as it was also a voluntary euthanasia. The answer is the fact the he administered the
substance himself, personally, when in the other cases, he let the victims do that, providing them with
the equipment and the respective substances. So besides the conviction of second-degree murder, he
was also convicted for the delivery of controlled substances. He decided to represent himself, regretting
it later on, and because of his inexperience in legal matters he couldnt even get testimony from his
witnesses, Youks family. As a result he was sentenced to serve 10 to 25 years in prison, out of which
he served 8 and a half, being granted parole in 2007. There are also other people that are advocating for
the legalization of euthanasia like Philip Nitschke from Australia, director, founder, author of a proeuthanasia non-profit organization - Exit International. He did actually campaign successfully as he
succeeded to have passed a law that legalized euthanasia in Northern Australia and assisted 4 people till
the law was overturned by their federal government. He may as well be one of the first doctors to have
administered legally, voluntarily a lethal injection. There are other such organizations, as the swiss
group Dignitas. It is also known that in Switzerland, doctor assisted suicides are legal. The founder is a
lawyer, Ludwig Minelli who also believes that physician-assisted suicides should be available for both
healthy and sick individuals. I personally disagree with the fact that euthanasia should be made
available for healthy individuals, because it defeats the purpose of it all, in my opinion. If I may be
allowed to make the analogy, I compare this particularity with the subject of steroids they are great
when administered to those who really need them, to recuperate from an accident or physical traumas,
but when they are used for the fun of it, to take a shortcut and to simply enhance the performance of an
already healthy, stable organism, making them available for everybody is plain wrong in my opinion.
Same thing with euthanasia leave it as an option for those who need it, who are terminally ill, this
way abuse shall be prevented and only rigorous medical examinations should tell if a person should be
granted this wish to die. I also came across the interesting and dramatic case of Robert Latimer, a
Canadian canola and wheat farmer, that was convicted for murdering his daughter Tracy. This case
raised controversy throughout the whole nation of Canada. Tracy suffered from cerebral palsy, causing
her severe mental, physical disabilities accompanied by seizures, stomach bleedings etc. The father
acted out of compassion, out of love for his daughter and is one of the first, maybe the sole person who
served a 10 year sentence for a mercy killing. A poll made in 1999 revealed that over 70% of Canadians
sympathized with the father and believe he shouldve gotten a more lenient sentence and 41% agreed
that mercy killing should be made legal, but at the same time, numerous activists and disability rights

groups obtained intervenor status in the Latimer's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, stating that
by killing a severe disabled child like Tracy is no different than killing a healthy child and it should
have the same penalty for it. By proceeding otherwise would mean that the lives of the disabled are less
valuable and it would encourage more of such killings by the caregivers. They expressed a good point,
but in this particular case, the fathers background suggested that he cared for his daughter dearly, as
much as he did for his other 4 and it was his intention to relieve his daughter of the sufferings and pains
caused by her disability and as euthanasia is illegal in Canada, he took matters into his own hands. He
kept denying the fact that he did anything wrong, refusing to admit any wrongdoings, an attitude which
resulted in the rejection of his application for day-parole in 2007. Canadian legislation is very strict in
these matters and does not bend in any way because of the circumstances enlisted above, so the
sentencing could not have been any other than second-degree murder. If the same situation were to
happen in our country I am absolutely positive that it would have the same result regardless of the
circumstances and the fact that even the jury sympathized with the Robert Latimers situation. He
wouldve still be convicted for murder. Matter of fact, if I think about it, it would have the same result
even if it happened in Switzerland, where euthanasia is legal, because you still need to be a medical
practitioner and active euthanasia is still illegal. As if the topic regarding euthanasia wasnt complicated
enough, things get way more controversial and debatable when it comes to disabled persons, those who
cannot express their willingness, who cannot give the consent and request physician-assisted suicide as
they have no legal capacity or any capacity of understanding their situation. What happens to those who
apparently arent even aware of their own existence, of their own surrounding. Or are they really
unaware of their situation? This puts into debate the necessity of non-voluntary euthanasia, where the
parents, legal guardians, caregivers should be allowed to express the consent for their disabled children,
relatives. But how can someone else decide upon matters of life and death of someone elses life? But
then again, there are persons who need this kind of possibility, like the woman whose story got on the
Global News, 16x9 broadcast, titled Taking Mercy: Euthanasia Debate. Annette Corvo has two
children suffering from a rare genetic disorder, making them increasingly severely disabled as time
passes and now in their adult life, they are incapable, non-responsive and if it werent for modern
medicine and technology, their survival would be impossible. Although the mother could stop the life
support machines, being a legal option, that would mean starving them to death and as she mentions,
that is not something she would ever consider. Removing the life support was used to be called passive
euthanasia, not mercy killing, but now its being called just an appropriate treatment decision and that
just amazes me, because I think that proceeding in this manner is more inhumane and degrading. How
can you resort to the fact of watching a disabled person slowly and painfully wither away because of
the lack of nourishment, when they can be offered a peaceful, dignified way out? She pleads for the
right to be able to end her childrens suffering and also mentions something that had really struck a
cord in my mind dont judge, unless youve been there, dont judge.
As a conclusion, Id like to mention that as time will pass and the perspective of us being a fully
functional democracy, hoping that the future holds nothing but progress for society, euthanasia may one
day be a fully legal and socially accepted procedure, an option granted to everyone who truly needs it.
Hopefully, it will be needed less in the future as it is needed now, as we hope that medicine will
progress and cures will be invented for many of these deadly illnesses. Every person has the right to
live, why should they be denied the right to die as a means to put an end to their suffering and pain?
Each of us has the right to die peacefully, with dignity, without pain. I think that if God forbid, one gets
to the point where theres no quality of life, there is no treatment and death is imminent, theres only
pain and suffering awaiting or occurring, Id like to think that this person could be allowed to decide
upon his own fate. Why not grant these people the good death which even the great Augustus had?