FREE ESSAY ON EUTHANASIA IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY

EUTHANASIA IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY

Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral
dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme
ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia (which in Greek means easy death) is a
good, or merciful, death. Opponents of euthanasia say it is a fancy word for murder.
Between the two extremes, there are various positions for and against euthanasia. One
position opposes cases of active euthanasia, where an active, or overt, effort is made to
bring about death, such as in administering a lethal injection, but accept passive
euthanasia, which is generally described as declining to initiate extraordinary or even
ordinary medical treatment, as moral.
Another position advocates that passive euthanasia is acceptable when the person to die
has consented. Other positions include situations where a terminally ill patient is
unable to consent as justifiable, because it resolves a hopeless situation. Conversely,
even with this gradation, some opponents to euthanasia believe that voluntary, passive
euthanasia is the same as suicide; involuntary euthanasia is considered to be murder.
Because euthanasia poses classic dilemmas as to its morality, it is not surprising that
many issues arise in the legal and medical arenas. In law, the resolution of a particular
case cannot always be applied to resolve another. In the medical realm, interpretation of
medical doctrine concerning treatment of terminally-ill patients can result in entirely
different applications.
In two relatively recent cases, the Supreme Court had to decide the future of patients
that were considered to be in chronically persistent vegetative states. The courts had to
decide whether to continue with the prevailing treatment, as advocated by the medical
community, or discontinue treatment at the request of the patients' guardians. The courts
considered several factors in making a determination: What are the state's interests in
terms of human life? When does the patient's right to refuse treatment override the
state's interest? What does the right to refuse treatment entail, and is it included in
the patient's right to privacy? Do a patient's guardians have the right to refuse
treatment on behalf of a patient? What constitutes ordinary and extraordinary medical
treatment?
The court indicated that a patient's right to refuse treatment was an extension of the
constitutionally-derived right to privacy and, more importantly, permitted the assignment
of those rights to Quinlan's guardians.