POSITION PAPER

“THE ISSUE OF LEGALIZING EUTHANASIA”

SUMITTED BY:

KYTE LOGRONIO SAGRADO

GRADE 10-SAMPAGUITA

SUBMITTED TO:

AMELINDA VISTO MANIGOS

A.

Euthanasia refers to a practice whereby an act is

intentionally carried out with the purpose inducing death. It is

usually seen in light of inducing death to patients who are

terminally ill or may not be terminally ill but are suffering from

unbearable pain.

Euthanasia is generally defined as the act, undertaken only

by a physician, that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or

her request. The physician therefore administers the lethal

substance. In physician-assisted suicide (pas) on the other hand, a

person self-administers a lethal substance prescribed by a

physician.

B.

Euthanasia means killing on request and is defined as a

doctor intentionally killing a person by the administration of drugs,

at that person’s voluntary and competent request. In euthanasia

the intention is to kill the patient, the procedure is to administer a

lethal drug and the successful outcome is immediate death.

providing a person with the knowledge or means or both required

to commit suicide, including counseling about lethal doses of

drugs, prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs.

C.

Physician Assisted Suicide is defined as a doctor

intentionally helping a person to commit suicide by providing

drugs for self-administration, at that person’s voluntary and

competent request.

D.

The focus of this paper is on voluntary

euthanasia, namely, euthanasia carried out upon the

request of a patient deemed competent enough to

make such decisions. This paper will argue the

importance of legalizing voluntary euthanasia to

extend the right to choose of life to those incapables of

ending their lives.

THE “SLIPPERY SLOPE” ARGUMENT

The “slippery slope” argument, a complex legal and philosophical

concept, generally asserts that one exception to a law is followed by more

exceptions until a point is reached that would initially have been unacceptable.

The “slippery slope” argument has, however, several interpretations, some of

which are not germane to the euthanasia discussion. The interpretations

proposed by Keown in 2002 appear very relevant, however. He refers to these

collectively as a “practical slippery slope,” although the term “social slippery

slope” may be more applicable. The first interpretation postulates that

acceptance of one sort of euthanasia will lead to other, even less acceptable,

forms of euthanasia. The second contends that euthanasia and pas, which

originally would be regulated as a last-resort option in only very select

situations, could, over time, become less of a last resort and be sought more

quickly, even becoming a first choice in some cases.

The circumvention of safeguards and laws, with little if any

prosecution, provides some evidence of the social slippery slope phenomenon

described by Keown. Till now, no cases of euthanasia have been sent to the

judicial authorities for further investigation in Belgium. In the Netherlands, 16

cases (0.21% of all notified cases) were sent to the judicial authorities in the

first 4 years after the euthanasia law came into effect; few were investigated,

and none were prosecuted. In one case, a counsellor who provided advice to a
non-terminally ill person on how to commit suicide was acquitted. There has

therefore been an increasing tolerance toward transgressions of the law,

indicating a change in societal values after legalization of euthanasia and

assisted suicide.

In the 1987 preamble to its guidelines for euthanasia, the Royal Dutch

Medical Association had written “If there is no request from the patient, then

proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or

killing, and not of euthanasia.” By 2001, the association was supportive of the

new law in which a written wish in an advance directive for euthanasia would

be acceptable, and it is tolerant of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.

However, basing a request on an advance directive or living will may be

ethically problematic because the request is not contemporaneous with the act

and may not be evidence of the will of the patient at the time euthanasia is

carried out.

Initially, in the 1970s and 1980s, euthanasia and pas advocates in the

Netherlands made the case that these acts would be limited to a small number

of terminally ill patients experiencing intolerable suffering and that the

practices would be considered last-resort options only. By 2002, euthanasia

laws in neither Belgium nor the Netherlands limited euthanasia to persons

with a terminal disease (recognizing that the concept of “terminal” is in itself

open to interpretation and errors). The Dutch law requires only that a person
be “suffering hopelessly and unbearably.” “Suffering” is defined as both

physical and psychological, which includes people with depression. In Belgium,

the law ambiguously states that the person “must be in a hopeless medical

situation and be constantly suffering physically or psychologically.” By 2006,

the Royal Dutch Medical Association had declared that “being over the age of

70 and tired of living” should be an acceptable reason for requesting

euthanasia. That change is most concerning in light of evidence of elder abuse

in many societies, including Canada, and evidence that a large number of frail

elderly people and terminally ill patients already feel a sense of being burden

on their families and society, and a sense of isolation. The concern that these

people may feel obliged to access euthanasia or pas if it were to become

available is therefore not unreasonable, although evidence to verify that

concern is not currently available.

The number of deaths by euthanasia in Flanders has doubled since

1998. Of the total deaths in this Flemish-speaking part of Belgium (population

6 million), 1.1%, 0.3%, and 1.9% occurred by euthanasia in 1998, 2001, and

2007 respectively 30 (about 620, 500, and 1040 people respectively in those

years). The requirement of the law to report euthanasia cases (aided by laxity

in prosecuting cases that fall outside the requirement) may explain some, but

not all, of the increase. Chambaere et al. reported in the Canadian Medical

Association Journal that in Belgium, euthanasia without consent had

decreased from 3.2% in 1998 to 1.8% in 2007. But a closer review of the
original study shows that the rate had declined to 1.5% in 2001 and then

increased again to 1.8% in 2007.

Two recent studies further contradict the findings by Battin and

colleagues. Chambaere et al. found that voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

occurred predominantly among patients 80 years of age or older who were in a

coma or who had dementia. According to them, these patients “fit the

description of vulnerable patient groups at risk of life-ending without request.”

They concluded that “attention should therefore be paid to protecting these

patient groups from such practices.” In another study, two of the factors

significantly associated with a nurse administering life-ending drugs were the

absence of an explicit request from the patient and the patient being 80 years

of age or older.

Mandatory Reporting

Reporting is mandatory in all the jurisdictions, but this requirement

is often ignored. In Belgium, nearly half of all cases of euthanasia are not

reported to the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee. Legal requirements

were more frequently not met in unreported cases than in reported cases: a

written request for euthanasia was more often absent (88% vs. 18%),

physicians specialized in palliative care were consulted less often (55% vs.

98%), and the drugs were more often administered by a nurse (41% vs. 0%).

Most of the unreported cases (92%) involved acts of euthanasia, but were not
perceived to be “euthanasia” by the physician. In the Netherlands, at least 20%

of cases of euthanasia go unreported. That number is probably conservative

because it represents only cases that can be traced; the actual number may be

as high as 40%. Although reporting rates have increased from pre-legalization

in 2001, 20% represents several hundred people annually.

In my opinion, Euthanasia is where an ill person wants to

shorten his/her time in this world so that they couldn’t feel any pain

that they were suffering for a long time of their lives. In short, that

person who doesn’t really care or love they’re selves because as a

person in this society or world rather, I prefer to do good things so

that I could have a good memories of those person I loved and also

having a good experience in our lives could really make us feel bless

for everything that God given to us.

Furthermore, Euthanasia also called us assisted suicide that

some person who MUST motivate or help that person to believe that

there is HOPE is also the one who help that person to make their life

easier and it is very wrong. We are very lucky that God gave us a

wonderful life or giving us a chance to live in this world even though

we have a lot of challenges in our lives we should be thankful because

it makes us stronger. Problems are part of our life and the only thing

we could do is to trust on ourselves and also to God.

IV. CONCLUSION

I conclude, Euthanasia is a mortal sin and Catholics are against to

it. This kind of issue is what our societies also facing now because doctors,
nurses, or other people that are related to heal ill people should do their job.

The people who are depress, lonely, or the person who always wants to be

alone they are people who needs help from us. They want any attention from

us but some people don’t actually see it. In this societal issue it tries to warn or

inform everyone that it is not good for us to make a decision when we are not

in our minds or when we are stressed or sad. Making decisions is very

important because we cannot make things back to normal when we already do

our decisions and also, we might feel doubt to our decisions we make. We

people should face the reality and be happy for everything.

V. REFERENCES

1. www.bartleby.com

2. Deliens L, van der Wal G. The euthanasia law in Belgium and the

Netherlands. Lancet. 2003;362:1239–40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-

6736(03)14520-5. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Watson R. Luxembourg is to allow euthanasia. BMJ. 2009;338:b1248.

doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1248. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Steinbrook R. Physician-assisted death—from Oregon to Washington

State. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2513–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0809394.

[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

allowing a role for non-physicians. BMJ. 2003;326:271–3. doi:

10.1136/bmj.326.7383.271. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

6. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The

medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal

notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.

2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003. [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]