 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Home > Education > End of life > Euthanasia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Euthanasia |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is a core belief of pro-life campaigners that all human life should be protected from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Human life, at whatever stage and in whatever situation, has an inherent dignity and value. Abortion is such a terrible blight on our society because it is legal. As soon as a culture of death takes hold, it gathers a momentum of its own. This can be seen very clearly in the case of abortion. The promoters of the bill, which became the 1967 Abortion Act, assured parliament that abortion would remain rare and a last resort, yet there are now approximately 33 abortions every day, about 1000 per month, in Scotland alone. The decline in the value placed on unborn human lives entailed by legalised abortion led on logically to the legalisation of embryo experimentation, and, more recently, to a vote in the UK parliament to authorise the creation and destruction of cloned human embryos for the purposes of research. This decline in respect for unborn human life, and with it, a denial of the intrinsic and fundamental value of human life in and of itself, has allowed a utilitarian view of the purpose and meaning of life to dominate. As Norman Boyd (of the Northern Ireland Unionist party) has said: "Once the sanctity of life is denied, the value of every human being is in question. The growing pressure for euthanasia is witness to this"1. This explains why euthanasia and abortion are two sides of the same coin, both arise from the same disrespect for the dignity of human life. As soon as abortion becomes acceptable, the interest in legalising euthanasia logically follows. The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) made the point forcefully that all offences against human dignity, including abortion and euthanasia, are connected when it affirmed: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person... whatever insults human dignity... all these things and others like them … poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury"2. The basics of euthanasia The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek for good death. It has come to mean the deliberate killing of sick or disabled persons for supposedly merciful reasons. This is why it is also called mercy killing. A distinction is sometimes made between active euthanasia (e.g. administering a lethal injection) and passive euthanasia (where death occurs due to a withdrawal of treatment to cause death—this is forbidden by laws on murder and manslaughter). Morally speaking, there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because the aim of both is intentionally to deprive someone of life. Often in the debate over euthanasia, the principle of double effect is cited. Any action may have an intended good effect and an unintended bad effect. The principle of double effect allows that any action performed with the intention of producing a good effect (such as a doctor giving appropriate painkillers to alleviate severe pain) but that also has an unintended bad effect (such as shortening the patient’s life) is still a morally good act. The principle of double effect is well established in law. The House of Lords select committee on medical ethics stated in 1994 that a doctor may give: "treatment that would give relief, as long as the doctor acts in accordance with responsible medical practice with the objective of relieving pain and distress, and with no intention to kill"3. Likewise, it is acceptable to withhold or withdraw treatment when it is futile or unduly burdensome. The hastening of death may be a foreseen but unintended secondary effect of the act, thus in accordance with the principle of double effect. The case for euthanasia is often argued on the basis of autonomy—a patient’s freedom to make decisions about his or her own treatment. However, to invoke autonomy in this way misunderstands the concept of autonomy, overlooking the principle that the patient’s freedom entails a responsibility to act ethically. While a patient is capable of giving valid consent, a doctor has no authority to treat the patient unless that consent is given. However, the patient cannot ethically refuse treatment with the intention of bringing about his own death. To do so would be to involve his carers in assisting suicide. The ethical objection to suicide is reflected in law. In Britain, for compassionate reasons, there are no legal penalties for a person who attempts suicide. Parliament has recognised that people who have tried to kill themselves need help rather than punishment. However, there is no legal right to suicide, and certainly no right to involve others in killing oneself. This is because the right to life (of those who are already born) is an inalienable right. The obligation to respect the right to life extends to respecting one’s own life, so one cannot, in justice, intentionally deprive oneself of life. If the law were to allow some individuals to volunteer for euthanasia, this would threaten the right to life of others, especially people who are elderly, gravely ill or disabled. Legalisation of euthanasia would make a clear statement to society that it was permissible for private citizens (e.g. doctors) to kill because they accepted the view that a patient’s life was no longer worthwhile. If it is seen as a benefit to kill patients who consent to euthanasia, it is easy to argue that others should not be denied death simply because they cannot ask for it. It is notable that the leading case through which euthanasia has been sanctioned in England was not one of voluntary euthanasia, but rather related to a man so incapacitated that he could not express his wishes: that of Mr Anthony Bland. Euthanasia in the UK All forms of intentional killing (aside from abortion) were illegal in the UK until 1993. In that year the House of Lords let medical staff withdraw food and fluids from Mr Anthony Bland, who was being tube-fed and was in a so-called persistent vegetative state (PVS). He died of dehydration soon afterwards. In the Bland case, the provision of food and fluid via a tube was defined as medical treatment. While doctors had an obligation to provide adequate care, they did not have a duty to continue medical treatment, which was of no benefit. In Tony Bland’s case, the courts said that food and fluids were medical treatment and that they were of no benefit, i.e. Tony’s survival was of no benefit. Since the Bland case, the English courts have permitted the dehydration and starvation to death of at least 12 patients, and the Scottish courts followed with the case of Mrs Janet Johnstone in 19964. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect on 2 October 2000. On 6 October 2000 Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the English High Court’s family division, decided that the right to life enshrined in the Act did not prohibit doctors from withdrawing food and fluids from two severely incapacitated patients. It is not only the most severely incapacitated who are at risk. The Daily Telegraph has reported Dr Adrian Treloar, a consultant and senior lecturer in geriatrics in London, as saying that involuntary euthanasia was going on in NHS hospitals5. Dr Ian Bogle, the chairman of the British Medical Association (BMA), has said that elderly people receive lower standards of care. He speaks of "a problem of ageism in society and a result of huge pressure in the system"6. In a letter to The Times Mr James Bogle, barrister, and Dr Philip Howard, consultant physician, commenting on the British Medical Association’s guidelines which allow doctors to withdraw hydration and nutrition from patients who have suffered strokes or are otherwise incapacitated, said: "[The Medical Ethics Committee of the BMA] envisage that food and fluids could be withdrawn or withheld from some patients if delivered by tube. Without food and fluids the patient will inevitably die of dehydration or starvation. This is part of the muddle at the heart of the ethical debate over care of the elderly and incapacitated"7. Most people do not know how unpleasant it is to die of hunger or thirst. As well as a dry mouth and excessive thirst, dehydration can lead to:
Once relatives see the consequences of the withdrawal of food and fluid, they may be tempted to call for the legalisation of euthanasia by lethal injection. Some pro-euthanasia campaigners have expressed the hope that this will happen. The devolved Scottish Parliament has power over health and therefore over legislation on euthanasia. The Adults with Incapacity Bill attempted to define food and fluids as medical treatment, which could therefore be withdrawn. However, through lobbying, any specific reference to food and fluids as medical treatment was excluded from the Act and guidelines that followed. 1 Official Report, Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 June
2000 'A Way of Life' The Soicety for the Protection of Unborn Children March 2002 
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
