The fight to die.

The term euthanasia picks its origins from the Greek language whereby, "eu" means "good" and "thanatos" means "death". The simplest and most common way of reference towards the meaning of euthanasia is that it is the act of “pulling the plug” on someone being given life support through machines. This elimination of life support is typically branched out into several types: passive euthanasia- not directly putting the patient to death, but instead giving an allowance of death by possible discontinuation of medication, active euthanasia- use of deliberate action to end life. Furthermore, euthanasia may be voluntary (at the request of patient) or involuntary (decision made on behalf of patient in the case of babies and other patients not able to make a decision themselves).

Euthanasia should be legalised for patients who are suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement- terminally ill patients. This is because the patient has no quality or hope of life, it is a quick and dignified end to suffering, death is a personal matter, and the act may actually help in saving lives because of more availability of resources.

For all those who have an instant reaction of “No, it’s wrong!” to the concept of euthanasia must re- evaluate the basis of this conclusion they tend to make. These terminally ill patients are people with feelings, people who are loved and respected by friends and relatives. The situation faced by most includes- terror of breathlessness, uncontrollable vomit, continuous choking, inability to swallow, helplessness, weakness, paralysis, constant pain and distress and overall, sufficient impairment of an independent system of bodily functions- mental and physical. This way of life cannot be justified through exhaustive medical treatment as it is not a life anyone would be happy to live or bear with.

Another common misconception which has been created as an argument against euthanasia is that an individual has a right to life and hence, taking it away is immoral and inhumane. But the existence of a right does not necessitate the duty or compulsion to use it. It is merely a provision of protection from harm which is available as a choice for all individuals. Denial of the right to euthanasia may therefore be viewed as arrogance and immoral as it is a personal choice and should not be dismissed through use of force.

Another matter which should be given attention to is the public policy concerning the expenditure of keeping terminally ill patients alive. This money can instead, be effectively utilized to save other people’s lives that are being neglected because resources are occupied in providing life support for a patient without any hope to live- a vegetable.

Leagalisation of euthanasia should be thought over with an open mind, free of any cultural, religious or other bias. Proper regulation and close monitoring of the process can ensure that there is no abuse or misuse of the system. Marshall Perron said, “It is preferable to have euthanasia tolerated in particular circumstances with stringent safeguards and a degree of transparency, than to continue to prohibit it officially while allowing it to be carried out in secret without any controls.”