A law permitting euthanasia, which was passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory of Australia in and which came into force in July last year was overturned last month by a law passed by the Australian Federal Parliament.
Image Are our Euthanasia laws about to change? The problem is that it does. Indeed, the greatest argument in favour of euthanasia is the greatest argument against it: It is supremely rational. After all, we are all going to die anyway and so why, when the end is imminent, should we not go out in a time and manner of our own choosing?
It is eminently logical. And, for that matter, why should that choice be restricted to those with imminently terminal illnesses?
Surely people with chronic conditions that subject them to unbearable pain also deserve the right to die when the agony becomes too much. And of course we all know now that mental health is just as important as physical health and can be just as debilitating.
And so obviously anyone who is in such intense psychological anguish that life is unlivable should be able to end theirs with dignity. Yep, it makes perfect sense. As has been front page news in recent weeks, aged care is incredibly expensive — even if the quality of it is often appalling.
Add euthanasia to the mix, however, and both problems solve themselves. The same of course goes for people of any age with profound disabilities. Surely it is up to them to decide if their life is worth living. But, what if there is cognitive impairment?
What if the elderly person is suffering from dementia, as three in 10 people over the age of 85 already do?
What if the disability is mental as well as physical? The inheritor of their wealth? Or whoever has power of attorney? The distributor of their wealth?
Supplied And of course any thoughtful or considerate person would not just contemplate their own wellbeing but also that of their loved ones. They would hardly want to be a physical or financial burden on their beloved children, whose happiness they have always put above their own.
Indeed, the more civic-minded citizen would also appreciate that old age is a huge financial strain on the health system. A NSW study found that hospital care for the elderly in their last year of life alone soaked up almost one-tenth of the entire hospital budget.
And it got more and more expensive the closer the patient got to death — almost ten times in the last month what it was six months previous. In other words, were doctors able to estimate how long a patient had to live and give them the option of bowing out a few months earlier they could save thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per patient?
And here, again, is the problem. It is not just a commonsense option for the individual but for their family, their community, the government and the economy.
When it comes to making a decision whether or not to end a life that is a lot of pressure to resist. And what counterargument do we have lined up against this mountain of evidence, this immovable wall of logic? Just a sentimental attachment to our own lives despite the fact we all know they are going to end anyway.
It is completely and utterly irrational. The entire history of humanity has taught us that life is cheap, that the strong kill the weak, and that almost all of us will sink into the soil and be forgotten within a few short generations.
Yet human beings have childishly and nonsensically resisted this immutable fact at every turn. We have invented religions and rationalisations of every conceivable kind to reassure ourselves that our lives are worth something more.
We have even fought wars and killed to prove that life is worth living. Indeed, the very foundation of what it means to be human seems to stem from our ability to see our own death coming and our refusal to accept it.
Grave sites dating backyears have been found with symbolic or worldly goods destined for some imagined afterlife. Even today militant atheists and secular humanists defend an inherent human right to life or ascribe purposes to human life that transcend mere survival, such as serving a common moral good.
But all of these convictions are ultimately mere superstitions. Rationally speaking, there is nothing inherently good in merely being alive and the moment a person ceases to be so they are free from pain. There is no logical reason for us to exist at all and every reason to suspect that we will probably wipe ourselves out anyway.Download pdf of "Euthanasia, human rights and the law" ( KB) Download docx of "Euthanasia, human rights and the law" Arguments against legalising active voluntary euthanasia (a) Role of the doctor where we have seen people being euthanized without their specific consent.
That is not voluntary euthanasia. However, many. - Should We Legalize Euthanasia to a Person Who Is in a Vegetative State? Essay introduction?? Many people in many countries are suffering for no reason at the end of their lives. Why Environmentalists Should Care about Pet Euthanasia.
by Laura Kiesel – September 23, We treat our companion animals like we treat our disposable products. Each morning when I check my daily Facebook feed, I am greeted by the large, lovely eyes of dozens of cats.
No one who is informed could be unaware of the fact the clear majority of Australians believe voluntary euthanasia should be an option for the terminally ill.
Why we must legalise voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is a medical process which is similar to but distinct from the question should suicide be legal?
In euthanasia, a person facing terminal illness has life-prolonging treatment denied and some actions by medical practitioners can active kill the patient. We don’t let our beloved animals suffer, we shouldn’t allow our loved ones to either!
Share Reply to Susan E. McGorisk. Michael Maloney August 10th, at pm. Legalizing euthanasia could be misinterpreted by some.