My Curriculum Vitae

Been busy with volunteering, working and cinema/musical, restaurant, cafe visits the last 2 weeks, but I've managed to squeeze some time in to do some med-school interview preparation. One thing that interview candidates should be familiar with is medical ethics. Medical ethics may sound dead boring, but it's honestly a really exciting field that really generates some of the most heated and interesting debates that people can never ever reach a conclusion on. Even you, an individual, will not be able to stand on one single side in these topics. Euthanasia is one such topic. I know it's a topic that's already been all over the news, but I'd like to write down some of my own thoughts that I've gathered during my preparation.

So the definition of euthanasia is that person#1 intentionally kills, or permits person#2's death, for #2's benefit. Active euthanasia means that person#1 does something which results in #2's death. Passive euthanasia means that person#1 permits the death of person#2, or withholds or withdraws life-extending treatment. Currently, active euthanasia is an illegal practice in all countries and places in the world, besides the Netherlands and Belgium, and 2 states in the US (Washington and Oregon). Passive euthanasia is usually seen as more morally acceptable and is legal (at least as far as I know it's legal, and even commonly practiced in the UK). I guess the main difference between active and passive euthanasia which makes the difference between legal and illegal is that in active euthanasia someone performs an action that takes away someone else's life, whereas in passive, no one performs an action, instead a person is just left there to die.

There are lots and lots of arguments both against and for euthanasia, I've only picked a few that I think are the most significant arguments below.
Arguments against:
1. Euthanasia is meant to be an act to reduce the physical or psychological pain of an individual due to an a terminal or a deteriorating illness, who leads a life that is no longer meaningful, or with a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. However, the term 'terminal' is a much too ambiguous term - how long is terminal? Several years? A few months? And is it possible to accurately predict the life expectancy of a patient? Some patients diagnosed with a terminal disease will not die for years, and may eventually not even die of the diagnosed condition.
2. Euthanasia should be a decision carried out by the indivdual (or close relatives if the individual is unable to make a decision). However, emotional and psychological pressures could severely affect a patient's decision regarding euthanasia. Some patient might feel guilty about the emotional, dependent, and financial pressures for family members if he or she doesn't choose death. So the concern about being a burden could probably lead to a person feeling like it is a duty to die rather than choice.
3. If euthanasia were to be legalised, it could lead to a slippery slope, where laws will be expanded and more exceptions might be made etc. E.g. abortion was first legalised for the health of the baby or mother, and now in many countries, abortion is something carried out (almost) as spontaneously as buying ice-cream.
4. Killing is morally wrong and euthanasia is stating that human life is not important and there is no value to it.

Arguments for:
1. The most common argument for is that the pain the patient is experiencing is physically or psychologically unbearable, and it would be inhumane to keep them alive despite this. Also, if they are put on medication to control their pain, it could put them into a "drugged state" which is definitely not living life.
2. People have the right as free people to choose to die and not let other people's judgments and morals dictate the way we live.
3. A common misconception is that people for euthanasia is not saying that as soon as someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, that euthanasia should be carried out. Only when a fight has been carried out, and when the fight is clearly in vain and hopeless and the agony is unberable should euthanasia be an option along with hospice or in-home hospice care. There comes a time when further treatment is not compassionate, wise or medically beneficial.
4. Some people simply say that the bottom line is that killing is just morally wrong, it should not be done.

Personally, I can't decide whether euthanasia should be legalised or not. On one hand I'm leaning more for the pro-choice people. I agree that people have the right to die, it is cruel to force someone to stay alive. It's easy for people who have no terminal or deteriorating disease to say you should stay alive and fight, but to have not been in a patient's shoes, there is no way anyone can imagine how it is to live with brain cancer or motor neurone disease (which are two of the cruelest and "inhumane" disease, in my opinion). Also, I think it's completely wrong and cowardly to say that because killing is morally wrong, euthanasia is also morally wrong. I think it is even more wrong to try to obtain a sense of morality on the expense of the agony and suffering of others.

On the other hand, I also agree with the pro-life people that euthanasia should not be legalised. If it were, lots of people would end up dying due to the fear of being a burden for family members, or die because due to greedy or incompetent doctors, or whatever other reason that doesn't really make the choice of death completely a patient's own choice. It is not simply black and white, and there are lots of grey areas which would lead to countless exceptions of the law. If the law is broadened and expanded, lots of people could end up dying completely against their own wish.

What do you guys think? Holy shit, I think this is my record of the longest post ever.