Objections Against Legalizing Euthanasia in Hong Kong
Introduction
The question of euthanasia raises serious moral issues, since it implies that active measures will be taken to terminate human life. The definition of “euthanasia” is taken from Keown (1995) with the term mainly refers to a decision that is concerned with direct interventions or withholding of life-prolonging measures and that choice agrees with a person’s own will. Euthanasia can be mainly classified into voluntary and involuntary ones. As involuntary euthanasia is conducted in the absence of an individual’s consent, it is believed to be a kind of murder. While voluntary euthanasia is with the person’s direct consent, it is still highly controversial and is the focus of discussion in this essay.
In fact, euthanasia is allowed in countries like Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, Oregon of the United States (Chesterman, 1998). In June 1995, in response to legislators urging the legalization of euthanasia in Hong Kong like other countries, the Secretary of Health and Welfare Katherine Fok Lo Shiu-ching stated that, “As euthanasia is an issue with moral, ethical, social and legal implications, there is a need to seek views not only within the medical profession, but also from the community” (Tsang, 1998). Obviously, this issue is not only about the morality of a specific decision of an individual patient, but rather the ethics of having a social policy and practice in the society as a whole. Euthanasia, however, should not be legalized in Hong Kong as a social practice due to the overwhelming evidence of detrimental effects to individuals. Also, this practice may reinforce inequality of health care services in society (Emanuel, 1999).
Reducing pain and suffering is an excuse
Pain and suffering is not a valid reason to approve euthanasia legalization. Actual or anticipated ache and suffering is one of the major causes for those terminally ill patients to ask for euthanasia, preferring die to receive treatments which will only prolong dying. In other words,
The question of euthanasia raises serious moral issues, since it implies that active measures will be taken to terminate human life. The definition of “euthanasia” is taken from Keown (1995) with the term mainly refers to a decision that is concerned with direct interventions or withholding of life-prolonging measures and that choice agrees with a person’s own will. Euthanasia can be mainly classified into voluntary and involuntary ones. As involuntary euthanasia is conducted in the absence of an individual’s consent, it is believed to be a kind of murder. While voluntary euthanasia is with the person’s direct consent, it is still highly controversial and is the focus of discussion in this essay.
In fact, euthanasia is allowed in countries like Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, Oregon of the United States (Chesterman, 1998). In June 1995, in response to legislators urging the legalization of euthanasia in Hong Kong like other countries, the Secretary of Health and Welfare Katherine Fok Lo Shiu-ching stated that, “As euthanasia is an issue with moral, ethical, social and legal implications, there is a need to seek views not only within the medical profession, but also from the community” (Tsang, 1998). Obviously, this issue is not only about the morality of a specific decision of an individual patient, but rather the ethics of having a social policy and practice in the society as a whole. Euthanasia, however, should not be legalized in Hong Kong as a social practice due to the overwhelming evidence of detrimental effects to individuals. Also, this practice may reinforce inequality of health care services in society (Emanuel, 1999).
Reducing pain and suffering is an excuse
Pain and suffering is not a valid reason to approve euthanasia legalization. Actual or anticipated ache and suffering is one of the major causes for those terminally ill patients to ask for euthanasia, preferring die to receive treatments which will only prolong dying. In other words,
Bibliography: Chesterman, S. (1998). Last right: Euthanasia, the sanctity of life, and the law in the Netherlands and the northern territory of Australia. The International and Comparative Law Quaterly, 47, 362–393. Dyck, A. J. (2002). Life’s Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide. Michigan: Eerdmans. Emanuel, E.J. (1999). Symposium of physician-assisted suicide: What is the great benefit of legalizing euthanasia of physician-assisted suicide. Ethics, 109, 629–642. Hong Kong College of Physicians. (2000). Euthanasia, position statement of the Hong Kong College of Physicians. DC: Hong Kong College of Physicians. Hong Kong Society of Palliative Medicine newsletter, 2. (2001). Euthanasia study, letter to South China Morning Post. Retrieved 18 March, 2008, from http://www.fmshk.com/hkspm/newsletter/index.htm Keown, J. (Eds.) (1995). Euthanasia examined: Ethical, clinical and legal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lo W.L. (2002). Legco motion debate on euthanasia. Hong Kong Society of Palliative Medicine newsletter, 2. Retrieved 18 March, 2008, from http://www.fmshk.com/hkspm/newsletter/index.htm Tsang, E. (1998, July). The Asian way on death. Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Scotland Newsletter. Understanding euthanasia 2. (2007, December 23). Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Yahoo news database. http://hk.news.yahoo.com/071223/60/2lu8p.html