Euthanasia Debate

Group A – the group that we were a part of – believed that to allow a person to die with dignity, at a time of their choosing, would be kinder than allowing them to suffer – particularly if they had a terminal illness. If a person feels their quality of life has become impaired and their health deteriorated, they should have the right to end their suffering. It seems cruel to allow a person to suffer physically because of their illness, and mentally because of the effect on their self-esteem, etc., instead of allowing them to regain some form of control over their life. Group B retorted with current treatments in place, such as palliative care. They felt that a person with a terminal illness does not need to be euthanized in order to be free of their symptoms, and that pain can be relieved through use of syringe drivers and so forth. They also believed that if a large proportion of terminally ill people chose to be euthanized, it would discourage companies from researching cures for life threatening conditions such as AIDs and cancer. Group A stated that if anything, this would have the opposite effect and spur health agencies on to find a cure faster, in order to end the use of euthanasia.
Another point that group A focused on was the ability to have control over euthanasia through government legislation if it was legalised. This would prevent terminally ill people from going to drastic measures in order to feel free from their illness – such as suicide or travelling to countries where euthanasia is legal – and allow them to remain in familiar, comforting surroundings, where they could die with dignity, on their own terms. Group B interjected that this would create many other ethical implications, as it could also lead to non-voluntary euthanasia – giving health professionals the ability to dictate whether a person’s life is worth living. They also felt that people who are vulnerable or lack capacity may be euthanized without true understanding of what the