Euthanasia Case

Euthanasia

According to Merriam Webster, euthanasia is “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (2013). The term originates from the greek term euthantos which means literally, easy death (Merriam Webster, 2013). Euthanasia allows terminally ill people to choose a peaceful end to life, rather than suffering a painful drawn out death.

Euthanasia has been a dilemma on the forefront of many ethical debates in countries around the world. In Australia, euthanasia is currently illegal. However, for a short period of time in 1995, it was legalized in the Northern territory.

The key ethical principle brought forward by many supporters is the persons quality of life (Dolgoff et al. 2012). People who would qualify for euthanasia are suffering from terminal, debilitating diseases. They are in constant pain, and sometimes only alive because of ventilators and feeding tubes. Many potential patients do not show brain activity and are living as a “vegetable.” Is this fair?

A person living this way is not enjoying a fair quality of life. Some would argue that everyone is entitled to protection of life (Dolgoff et al. 2012). However, if a person is no longer responsive or is truly suffering, they are not living. The consequentialist theory ethical egoism states, “an act is morally right if its consequences are favourable for the individual concerned” (Felton, 2013). For many individuals euthanasia is favourable. Terminally ill cancer patients should not have to endure the suffering that the disease brings on. It is a punishment to make them be in distress in their final days.

Currently legislature treats euthanasia as a form of murder, because usually it is assisted by a family member or health provider. Dr. Sarah Edelman, a Clinical Psychologist supports euthanasia because it “would enable people who are hopelessly