Euthanasia can be defined as the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Usually it can be categorized into forms – voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia requires the patient’s consent and is legalized in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington. Non-voluntary euthanasia which is illegal in all countries is when the patient’s consent is not given. Euthanasia conducted on a person who is able to provide informed consent but does not because they do not choose to die or because they were not asked is involuntary euthanasia. Euthanasia can be supported because of rights and also argued against because of the difficulty to assess suffering.
Euthanasia gives the opportunity to exercise certain rights in terms of the patient having the right to die with dignity, the family’s right to proper closure and the medical personnel’s right to give their patient the best option. According to the Remmelink Commission’s Report (1991), 56 percent of the patients who requested euthanasia did so because of a feeling of “loss of dignity”. This dignity is often linked to the lack of autonomy the patient suffers. He or she would have experienced a certain degree of autonomy before their health deteriorated. To lose that independence triggers a sense of helplessness and a blow to their dignity in regards to how they lived their life before. Not able to function normally on a daily basis and to be in constant care of others seems to be worse option than death and thus, patients would rather end their lives on their own terms with dignity. And they have a right to that death just as they had a right to live their life whatever way they wanted. Bioethicist H.T. Engelhardt’s question (2000) “If rationality, freedom, dignity and self-determination distinguish the good life, should they not characterize the good death?” proves this point.
Euthanasia does not only affect the patient but everyone who is involved in their dying process. In light with the patient’s right to die with dignity, their family would also want their loved one to retain their dignity. They would also get a better closure knowing that the patient got what he wanted regardless of whether that is in line with their own opinion. They deserve to exercise that right since they are the ones that have most probably watched their love one suffer for a long time. In addition, research done by Swarte, van der Lee, van der Bom, van der Bout and Heintz in 2003 shows that “The bereaved family and friends of cancer patients who dead by euthanasia coped better with respect to grief symptoms and post-traumatic stress than the bereaved of comparable cancer patients who dies a natural death”. This could be because they were more mentally prepared and had the chance to express their last goodbyes. Moreover, medical personnel who handled the patient’s case should have the right to give him the best option. If they already know that no treatment would have any positive effect anymore and the patient has given consent, euthanasia then becomes that best option.
Euthanasia gives rise to the question of how to assess the suffering of the patient properly with regards to the patient’s individualistic perception of pain and the contradiction of medical personnel’s opinions. In research done by Dees, Vernooij-Dassen, Dekkers and van Weel in 2010, it was found out that “There is no generally accepted definition of ‘unbearable suffering’ in the context of a request for Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. On the basis of the articles reviewed, we propose the following conceptual definition: ‘Unbearable suffering in the context of a request for EAS is a profoundly personal experience of an actual or perceived impending threat to the integrity or life of the person, which has a significant duration and a central place in the person's mind.” From this we can see that there is no proper, solid guideline to assess the suffering of the patient and the situation can only rely on the patient’s judgment of their pain. However, pain tolerance changes with age, gender, experience and other factors. For example, generally speaking, a sixteen-year-old would be able to tolerate the pain that a six-year-old would not be able to. So when a patient claims that they are in pain so much so that they would rather choose death over it, we do not know if really their limit of pain. Moreover, in some cases, there are conflicting opinions of the medical personnel handling the case of the patient who has requested euthanasia because of unbearable pain. For example, the medical doctor might be agreeable with the patient but the attached psychiatrist might claim that the patient does not have the mental capability to take such a decision. In this way, it gets more complex and difficult to assess the suffering of the patient and decide whether it is right to carry out euthanasia or not.
In conclusion, proponents of euthanasia mention the rights of the people involved and opponents argue about the difficulty to assess the suffering of the patient. While it is illegal in almost all countries in the world and thus, does not receive as much global attention, it will definitely become a hot issue in the near future with all the advancement in medical technology taking place. We must then prepare to take a stand with a clear conscience. After all, this is truly, a life and death matter.
Reference List
Cica, Natasha. (1996). Euthanasia - the Australian Law in an International Context. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1996-97/97rp4.htm#magic_tag_18
Dees, M., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Dekkers, W. and van Weel, C. (2010), Unbearable suffering of patients with a request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: an integrative review. Psycho-Oncology, 19: 339–352. doi: 10.1002/pon.1612
Swarte, N.B., Van der Lee, M.L., Van der Bom, J.G., Van der Bout, J., Heintz, P.M. (2003, 24 July). Effects of euthanasia on the bereaved family and friends: a cross sectional study. British Medical Journal. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7408.189
Taboada, P. Human Dignity and the Ethics and Aesthetics of Pain and Suffering. International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care. Retrieved from http://www.hospicecare.com/Ethics/monthlypiece/eithics2003/pom_feb03.htm
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Should capital punishment be abolished? Discuss.
Capital punishment has been a topic of ferocious debate for decades between human rights organizations and government policy makers. Also known as the death penalty, capital punishment can be served to criminals via beheading, hanging, electrocution, lethal injection and shooting. According to Amnesty International, a global movement for human rights, as of 2010, there are 96 capital punishment abolitionist countries in the world. In addition, there are 139 countries that support and practice capital punishment in their justice systems. In line with that, capital punishment should not be abolished because of retribution, incapacitation and deterrence.
Firstly, A criminal undergoes the death penalty as retribution- deserving and inevitable punishment through death for the crime that he committed. This is most evident in the cases of murderers. As they made a choice to intentionally take away a life, they simultaneously, forfeit their own right to live and have to face the consequences in front of the law. This might be superficially seen as revengeful or employing an “eye for an eye” approach but that is only applicable if a human does it, not the law. As Edward van den Haag, John M. Olin Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy of Fordham University mentioned (1986), the law’s punishments were never created to avenge or compensate for the victim’s suffering. Rather it is used to “vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime”. In addition, families of the victim would have a chance of experiencing a better closure if they know that the person that killed their loved one suffered retribution through death. Opponents of capital punishments can argue that how is one able to judge which crimes receive the death sentence as retribution and which don’t. For example, Singapore hands out capital punishment for drug trafficking but Japan only does for treason and homicide. But let us think about it, is it possible to actually devise a proper way of judging how to do that? Every country would have the same kind of laws then, let alone the ones related to capital punishment. By committing a crime, the criminal automatically assumed the risk of facing legal punishment and if that is capital punishment, so be it.
Secondly, an offender is incapacitated; meaning his ability to commit further offenses is eliminated when capital punishment is performed on him. It is a country’s duty and moral obligation to protect its citizens as much as possible. By letting a criminal out and allowing the possibility for him to recidivate, we are putting the lives of citizens in danger. Thus, it is better to execute him. Supporters of abolishing capital punishment often mention about the value of life and how we as humans, do not have the right to take away the life of the offender. But it is plain that the values of potential victims’ lives are worth more than the criminal’s due to the crime that he purposely did. In addition, the Supreme Court of United States of America mentioned (1976) that “the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death”. For example, well-known terrorist leader, Osama Bin Laden was shot to death by an US operation military unit on May 2nd, 2011. His continual crimes against humanity through terrorism deserved him capital punishment and he was stopped from taking away more innocents’ lives.
Lastly, an offender who goes through capital punishment for the crime he committed, deters others from doing the crime. Famous playwright John Webster wrote “Death hath ten thousand several doors. For men to take their exits.” and it is rare that someone would want to take their “exit” as a criminal and the law as the Grim Reaper. According to the research done by Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd in 2003, “capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus ten.” Deterrence does occur because the fear of death is innate in all of us. Since hearing the tales of Captain Hook sending Peter Pan to walk the plank or Snow White eating the poisoned apple, from a young age, death has been portrayed as a negative thing and the finality of it scares us. People, then would not commit crimes that would result them in receiving capital punishment because, simply, they do not want to die and not especially in a painful way under the scrutiny of law. There has been research suggesting that capital punishment does not deter offenders but as John McAdams, professor of Political Science at Marquette University said (1997)“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former”.
In conclusion, capital punishment is a much needed strategy in the justice systems of countries because it is a form of retribution, incapacitation and deterrence. If all countries are converted into abolitionists, it might give rise to dire consequences in society. Though reviews can be made to the how capital punishment is carried out to make it more shorter and sharper to avoid unnecessary excessive pain for the offender, it is not right to abolish it all together as it is just justified to punish those who deserve it.
Reference List
Rogers, S. (2011). Death penalty statistics, country by country. The Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world
Van Den Haag, E. (1986). The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense. PBS. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/haagarticle.html
Marshall, J. (1976). Gregg v. Georgia. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0428_0153_ZD1.html
Dezhbakhsh,H. ,Rubin, P.H., & Shepherd, J.M. (2003). Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data [Abstract]. American Law and Economics Review, 5, 344-376. Doi: 10.1093/aler/ahg021
Archer, D., Sarat, A. & McAdams, J. (1997). Purposes of the Death Penalty. American Bar Association. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/focus_on_law_studies_home/publiced_focus_spr97pur.html
Firstly, A criminal undergoes the death penalty as retribution- deserving and inevitable punishment through death for the crime that he committed. This is most evident in the cases of murderers. As they made a choice to intentionally take away a life, they simultaneously, forfeit their own right to live and have to face the consequences in front of the law. This might be superficially seen as revengeful or employing an “eye for an eye” approach but that is only applicable if a human does it, not the law. As Edward van den Haag, John M. Olin Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy of Fordham University mentioned (1986), the law’s punishments were never created to avenge or compensate for the victim’s suffering. Rather it is used to “vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime”. In addition, families of the victim would have a chance of experiencing a better closure if they know that the person that killed their loved one suffered retribution through death. Opponents of capital punishments can argue that how is one able to judge which crimes receive the death sentence as retribution and which don’t. For example, Singapore hands out capital punishment for drug trafficking but Japan only does for treason and homicide. But let us think about it, is it possible to actually devise a proper way of judging how to do that? Every country would have the same kind of laws then, let alone the ones related to capital punishment. By committing a crime, the criminal automatically assumed the risk of facing legal punishment and if that is capital punishment, so be it.
Secondly, an offender is incapacitated; meaning his ability to commit further offenses is eliminated when capital punishment is performed on him. It is a country’s duty and moral obligation to protect its citizens as much as possible. By letting a criminal out and allowing the possibility for him to recidivate, we are putting the lives of citizens in danger. Thus, it is better to execute him. Supporters of abolishing capital punishment often mention about the value of life and how we as humans, do not have the right to take away the life of the offender. But it is plain that the values of potential victims’ lives are worth more than the criminal’s due to the crime that he purposely did. In addition, the Supreme Court of United States of America mentioned (1976) that “the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death”. For example, well-known terrorist leader, Osama Bin Laden was shot to death by an US operation military unit on May 2nd, 2011. His continual crimes against humanity through terrorism deserved him capital punishment and he was stopped from taking away more innocents’ lives.
Lastly, an offender who goes through capital punishment for the crime he committed, deters others from doing the crime. Famous playwright John Webster wrote “Death hath ten thousand several doors. For men to take their exits.” and it is rare that someone would want to take their “exit” as a criminal and the law as the Grim Reaper. According to the research done by Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd in 2003, “capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus ten.” Deterrence does occur because the fear of death is innate in all of us. Since hearing the tales of Captain Hook sending Peter Pan to walk the plank or Snow White eating the poisoned apple, from a young age, death has been portrayed as a negative thing and the finality of it scares us. People, then would not commit crimes that would result them in receiving capital punishment because, simply, they do not want to die and not especially in a painful way under the scrutiny of law. There has been research suggesting that capital punishment does not deter offenders but as John McAdams, professor of Political Science at Marquette University said (1997)“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former”.
In conclusion, capital punishment is a much needed strategy in the justice systems of countries because it is a form of retribution, incapacitation and deterrence. If all countries are converted into abolitionists, it might give rise to dire consequences in society. Though reviews can be made to the how capital punishment is carried out to make it more shorter and sharper to avoid unnecessary excessive pain for the offender, it is not right to abolish it all together as it is just justified to punish those who deserve it.
Reference List
Rogers, S. (2011). Death penalty statistics, country by country. The Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world
Van Den Haag, E. (1986). The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense. PBS. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/haagarticle.html
Marshall, J. (1976). Gregg v. Georgia. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0428_0153_ZD1.html
Dezhbakhsh,H. ,Rubin, P.H., & Shepherd, J.M. (2003). Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data [Abstract]. American Law and Economics Review, 5, 344-376. Doi: 10.1093/aler/ahg021
Archer, D., Sarat, A. & McAdams, J. (1997). Purposes of the Death Penalty. American Bar Association. Retrieved 12 January 2012 from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/focus_on_law_studies_home/publiced_focus_spr97pur.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)