For the past couple of decades, euthanasia has been, and still is, an extremely controversial issue all around the world, especially in the U.S.A. It primarily deals with terminating the life of certain members of society who are physically or mentally ill. By definition, euthanasia is "an easy and painless death; eu=well, thanatos=death" (Webster, 631). Although the word literally means "good death," it is usually referred to as "mercy killing." There has been a movement headed by the supporters of euthanasia to legalize it in the American legal system. Supporters of euthanasia argue that mercy killing is a way in which terminally ill patients can die with dignity. They need not die like animals squirming for their last breath. They need not beg for someone to donate a much needed kidney or lung. These terminally ill patients want to die while still able to comprehend their surroundings. They don’t want to be pitied or looked down upon. Why live the last few years of your life amongst strangers in a hospital? Why live fearing when your next dosage of chemotherapy would have to be? These patients also fear the immense pain that accompanies terminally ill diseases. Although there are pain killers that doctors provide to lessen, if not obliterate, the pain, these patients wish not to live years of their life numb of all bodily feelings. In summation, supporters of euthanasia feel that euthanasia can very much benefit its users.

Although I can sympathize with these points of views, I have to disagree. Euthanasia, no matter how much it alleviates pain, no matter how much it dignifies the patient, and no matter how it saves money, is morally wrong. If successful, the institutionalization of euthanasia can and will have destructive consequences on the morals and ethics of the American society. More important, euthanasia ethically violates our views on suicide and murder. In stopping any further pursuit of the legalization of euthanasia, we will have saved our morals from slipping down a slippery slope. The opponents of euthanasia use three arguments to support their theories: human tendency to abuse given rights, use of the healer as a killer and its effects on the doctor-patient relationship, and the violent change in the family and its effects on the family-patient relationship.

The first argument used in debating against euthanasia is the tendency for human abuse. The tendency for humans to take advantage of given rights is very high. In fact, history shows that most freedoms obtained by humans have been repeatedly taken advantage of. For example, after the institutionalization of the "no-fault-divorce" in Canada 30 years ago, divorce has increased 600% (Rotheisler, Alberta Report). Similarly, the consequences of the abuse of the law legalizing euthanasia are too risky. Opponents of euthanasia make what is known as the "slippery slope" theory. Once society starts down this slippery slide, it is virtually impossible to go back up. For example, we would start off by euthanizing the terminally ill. We would then go onto euthanizing new born infants with birth defects, then people with Alzheimer’s disease, then those that are a burden on society. Finally, the slide will take us so low as to euthanize those that can’t afford medical insurance simply because it’s too emotionally and financially draining.

In fact, in the Netherlands where active euthanasia is legalized these very abuses exist. After the legalization of euthanasia, the government allowed it to be used with terminally ill patients provided that they give their consent. This is known as voluntary active euthanasia. Then they legalized euthanasia for those who could not give their consent, but were in a vegetative state. This is referred to as involuntary active euthanasia. Worse yet, now the terminating of the depressed is legalized. In fact, on September 28, 1991, Boudewijn Chabot, a Dutch Psychiatrist, assisted in the euthanizing of Hilly Bosscher due to her deep depression. Even in the Netherlands, a country with the most liberal "mercy killing" policies, there existed no account of assisted suicide in the case of depression (Otto, 5). This shows exactly how far down the slope the Netherlands has become. Chabot’s lawyer concluded after winning her case, "the ruling recognized the right of patients experiencing severe psychic pain to choose to die with dignity" (Otto, 5). George Annas, health law professor at Boston University, commented on this case saying, "If you’re worried about the slippery slope, this case is as far down as you can get" (Otto, 5).

Supporters of euthanasia make the case that laws can regulate the abuse of euthanasia. They propose laws such as legalizing only voluntary active euthanasia and not its involuntary form. My question to these people is "What would prevent people from making new laws that would banish this law?" However, given that laws might attempt to regulate abuse, the history of legal "loop holes" is not a cheering one. Abuses might arise when the patient is wealthy and an inheritance is at stake or when the doctor has made mistakes in diagnosis and treatment and hopes to avoid detection.

The second argument against euthanasia is the destructive effects legalizing euthanasia would have on the doctor-patient relationship. For centuries the doctor’s manifest function has been to heal patients and minimize their suffering. There is a certain kind of trust between both the patient and doctor that grows throughout the relationship. This trust is based on the sole fact that the doctor is always there to cure diseases and save peoples’ lives. This strong trust is what pushes a mother and father to fully trust a neurosurgeon to operate on their little daughter’s brain. The slightest mistake would lead to the young girl’s death. The parents have confidence in the doctor to act towards her as if she was his own child.

"This traditional tie between doctor and patient," says Dr. Heifetz, in his book The Right to Die, "has a unique character that exists no where else in human experience." "Its remarkable quality," he continues, "lies in the amazing…strength of the empathy that develops between them [patient and doctor]." Unfortunately, the institutionalization of euthanasia will destroy such an empathic bond. Instead of society trusting the doctor, it will fear and distrust him. A patient will always wonder whether the doctor is doing his/her best for them. In fact, in the Netherlands, a report sponsored by the Dutch government showed that as a result of the physician-assisted suicide policy, 1000 lives a year are being terminated deliberately without the consent of the patient. Without the consent of the patient means that there is no living will set by the patient stating that he should be euthanized. Most of these cases are suggested by the doctor to the family. Furthermore, one fourth of these deaths have been based upon premature decisions. (O’Connor, 1088). Statistics like the ones mentioned above result in patients’ and their families’ lack of confidence towards their doctors. This distrust might even finally end in total alienation.

Not only is the patient’s view of the doctor affected, but the doctor’s view of himself severely deteriorates as well. By default a doctor is strictly a healer. He is supposed to try his hardest to heal and cure pain. In fact, before a doctor can be a doctor, he must take what is known as the Hippocratic Oath. This oath states that the doctor "will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will [he] make a suggestion to this effect…." However, as more and more patients ask to be released out of their misery, the doctor finds himself utterly confused and at a lost. On the one hand, he feels a moral obligation towards the Hippocratic Oath and on the other hand, his own patient is severely pained.

The pro-euthanasia movement hands the dirty work of the actual killing to the doctors who by and large neither seek nor want this responsibility. Euthanasia advocates seem very confident that doctors can be relied on to make the enormous efforts sometimes necessary to save lives, while at the same time assenting to requests to take other lives. Curiously, as one closely observes the physicians as a society, one will find the rates of depression, suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital discord shockingly high among this group. Perhaps the roles and expectations of society upon this group are too contradictory to be handled for a long time. Imagine, if doctors are already finding it hard to adjust to society’s high expectations before the legalization of euthanasia, what would happen after it is legalized? The doctor-patient relationship is converted from a one of caring to that of total emotional detachment.

Similarly, the last main factor, the patient-family relationship, also works in somewhat the same way that the doctor-patient relationship works. Here, however, most of the pressures shift to the patient. There is a constant pressure put on the patient concerning how his/her family will cope with his/her illness, especially from the financial standpoint. From there on, start a whole series of concerns and problems, most economically based. Families have all kinds of subtle ways, conscious or unconscious, of putting pressure on a patient to request euthanasia, relieving their families from the financial and social burden of care. Many patients already feel guilty for imposing burdens on those who care for them, even when the families are happy to bear this burden. To provide an avenue for the discharge of that guilt is to risk putting to death a great many patients who do not wish to die. Many patients who enter a specific risky operation tell their families to euthanize them if any thing abnormal happens. Little do these patients know the impact of what they did. Assuming for a moment that these patients care nothing about the financial burden on the family, they will still—in their own minds—feel burdensome on their families. This constant uncertainty between both the family and the patient drastically changes their relationship. It shifts the family’s role from an emotionally supportive entity to that of an economically based one. Every member fears the effects of the tragic illness on their lives. Thoughts of how to pay for the expenses and how to cope with such a loss constantly create even bigger problems. This eventually leads to changes in family structure, which leads to changes in society’s structure. Greed and selfishness would replace the compassion and sympathy in a family.

Sociologically, euthanasia falls under two concepts: that of Emile Durkheim’s suicide study and Society’s concept of Deviance. First, Emile Durkheim, the first sociologist who evaluated rates of suicide, breaks down suicide into four categories: Egoistic, anomic, altruistic, and fatalistic. Euthanasia falls under the anomic suicide. According to Durkheim, this anomic suicide occurs when a person is in confusion as to how to deal with a new change in their lives.

Although this concept is mostly applied to war veterans, it can be applied to euthanasia. A patient who is thinking about euthanasia due to a terminal illness, for example, is in a status where he does not know how to act, what to say, or how to feel. He feels helpless and abnormal. He also fears society’s acceptance of his condition. Therefore, the easiest "way out" is by using euthanasia as a legal means of suicide. For example, in Hilly Bosscher’s case, she was feeling quite helpless due to a husband who was an abusive alcoholic, a son who committed suicide, and another son with lung cancer. In her case, society dictated no norms of action. She "rebelled" by going into a depression. She envisioned her need to end her life a necessity to end her confusion. She repeatedly tried to commit suicide on her own but failed. She was quoted to say the "rope only offers a 70% chance of success, [and] I don’t know about the train…the mess" (Boufescis, 61). Finally, her doctor assisted her in committing suicide. Her decision to kill herself while under a depression brings up an interesting question: Had Hilly NOT been depressed and affected by her depressed mind (which affects her to perhaps make the wrong decision), would she had made the same decision? If she had survived this episode and not killed herself, would she, with a sane mind, choose to die if it all happened again?

Society should view euthanasia as a means of social deviance. The Encyclopedia of Social Science defines deviance to be "a behavior that violates the normative rules, understanding, and expectation of social systems." Since killing or murdering is a violation of society’s norms, laws, and regulations, euthanasia—a kind of killing—is a deviant behavior and must be dealt with as such.

In conclusion, although euthanasia might seem to some people as the only way of escaping pain, whether it’s mental or physical, it is not the ultimate solution. Many factors play a critical role in our consideration of this law. Looking at its grave consequences on our morals and ethics, one can see it only as a down fall rather than an advancement. Eventually, if institutionalized, euthanasia might very likely result in mass genocide. Although this might seem extreme, it is what exactly happened when euthanasia was legalized under the Nazi regime in Germany. The Nazis first started with terminally ill people, then moved on to the maimed, then the retarded, then the elderly, then the holocaust of 6 million Jews. In fact, that is the same road that the Netherlands is headed towards. No matter what one’s view of euthanasia, it would be morally wrong to ignore the pain of the patient. However, alleviating that pain should not be at the grave risk of starting a whole set of different problems. Therefore, the legalization and regulation of euthanasia is not an appropriate response. The risks of such institutionalization are so grave as to out weigh the very real suffering of those who might benefit from it.

Works Cited

Boufexis, Anastasia. "Killing the Psychic Pain." Times Magazine: V 144, n61, July 4, 1994.

Heifetz, Milton D. The Right to Die. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1975.

Melton, Gordon J. The Church Speaks on Euthanasia. Michigan: Gale Research Inc, 1991.

Otto, Randall E. "Botoom of Slope: Euthanasia in the Netherlands." Commonwealth: V 122, n10, May 19, 1995.

Webster, Noah. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Simo and Schuster, 1983.

Wennberg, Robert N. The Terminal Choices: Euthanasia, Suicide, and the Right to Die. Michigan: William B. Eardmans Publishing Company, 1989.