Playing Doctor vs Playing God

Euthanasia. Good Death. Mercy Death. In scientific terminology, “assisted dying”.

Can any death be “good” or “merciful”? If a doctor assists in killing a patient with a terminal condition, should that even be considered a compassionate act? Will the surrounding circumstances like the patient’s conditions need to be considered? Or, is it immoral regardless because “God gives and God takes away?” (Job 1:21)

To start from the top, “euthanasia” is the process of ending someone’s life, particularly by a doctor in order to mitigate a person’s suffering from a terminal or painful illness. There are four different types of euthanasia that need to be distinguished: active, passive, indirect, and physician-assisted suicide. Active refers to the “administration of a lethal substance” like a sedative by another with a “merciful intent; passive refers to withholding or withdrawing the treatment that is keeping the patient alive; indirect euthanasia is the prescription of fatal painkillers; physician-assisted suicide is medical assistance given to a patient in ending their life (“Attitudes of Physicians towards Different Types of Euthanasia in Kuwait”)

The controversy usually roots from the fine line between euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is when there are steps taken in order to end someone’s life and is carried out by someone else, not the patient themselves. However, assisted suicide is when someone takes their own life with the help of someone else (Ashford). Though countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and even a few American states permit euthanasia and assisted suicide in times of extreme suffering, the United Kingdom has no exceptions (Ashford). They blatantly do not permit it. They even go a step ahead and impose a murder charge for conducting euthanasia and under the 1961 Suicide Act, 14 years of imprisonment for being involved in assisted suicide in any way (Ashford). Now why is the UK so strict with euthanasia even if it means alleviating one’s pain?

There are generally two underlying reasons for their decision: the inability to effectively regulate euthanasia and the ethical aspect. Starting with the former reason, it makes sense that legalizing euthanasia would lead to a lot of abuse whether it is through the patient’s family’s request to relieve their financial pressure or the patient themselves, feeling a sense of burden on their family. However, pro-euthanasia advocates claim that abuse would be more prominent by making this process illegal. As the amount of laws increase, people’s desire to press the red button does as well, something that can evidently be seen through the prohibition of alcohol.

However, this abuse is not only found within the common people, but also doctors themselves. There is concern surrounding the doctors’ potential mistreatment of their patients by killing them without their permission to either save money or even create more room in the hospital ("Ethics: Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide"). Doctors are responsible for doing everything in their power to keep a patient alive, but legalizing euthanasia may potentially give doctors too much power, which segues into the idea that “doctors should not be allowed to play God” ("Ethics: Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide").

Ever heard of a patient being put on DNR? Well, this refers to a patient being put on “Do Not Resuscitate” orders, which is a type of passive euthanasia when the patient and their family agrees to not use CPR on the patient if their heart stops or they stop breathing. DNR orders are given to a patient who prefers a natural death and does not want to suffer the consequences of staying alive. However, an Age Concern dossier in 2000 showed that doctors seem to have “stereotypes of who is not worth saving”, particularly older people, African Americans, alcohol abusers, non-English speakers, and people with HIV ("Ethics: Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide" ). With this sort of discrimination, euthanasia seems to raise serious racial questions.

On top of that, many religions are strictly opposed to the idea of not following the natural cycle of life that is predetermined by God. But in that case, wouldn’t do-not-resuscitate orders also be compliant with the idea of a natural death? And does this mean there is a difference between killing someone and letting them die?

Whether it is the attitudes of the general public, religious folks, or even physicians, there is much debate. A study concluded that with the diverse attitudes of physicians in Kuwait, the guidelines presented by the Ministry of Health should be used to determine when the time is appropriate to administer euthanasia (“Attitudes of Physicians towards Different Types of Euthanasia in Kuwait”). Maybe this is the most practical solution: establishing limits that people should not cross. But how can we ensure that people will abide by them? It all boils down to the importance of medical professionals remembering to play doctor, and not play God.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Ethics: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide. 2014, www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/.

Ashford, James. “Countries Where Euthanasia Is Legal.” The Week UK, The Week UK, 28 Aug. 2019, www.theweek.co.uk/102978/countries-where-euthanasia-is-legal.

Abohaimed, Shaikhah et al. “Attitudes of Physicians towards Different Types of Euthanasia in Kuwait.” Medical principles and practice: international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre vol. 28,3 (2019): 199-207. doi:10.1159/000497377