Legalizing Euthanasia In Australia

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

Euthanasia, currently a very controversial topic of discussion throughout Australia. The question is “should euthanasia be legalised, and if so who is legible to be euthanised?” It is currently illegal in Australia to be euthanised, however 86% of the public agrees that euthanasia should be administered to people who are willing to if they are terminally ill, and a surprising 54% of practitioners agree also. Even though this is the case, why is it still illegal? What are the dangers of euthanasia if any, and where do we draw the line?

Although euthanasia is a complex and controversial subject, under certain conditions people should have the right to decide to end their own lives. Is euthanasia murder or mercy? We need to understand what Mercy, Murder and Euthanasia are before we can form any opinion.

When we hear the phrase voluntary euthanasia people generally think of one of two things: the active termination of life at the patient's or the Nazi extermination program of murder. Many people have beliefs about whether euthanasia is right or wrong, often without being able to define it clearly. Some people take an extreme view, while many fall somewhere between the two camps. The derivation means gentle and easy death coming from the Greek words, eu - thanatos. Euthanasia was formerly called "mercy killing," euthanasia means intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. Put bluntly, euthanasia means killing in the name of compassion.

[The criminal code of Canada states] “everyone who councils, aids, or abets someone to commit suicide whether or not suicide ensures , is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” 1 It is this law which violates the human right to life as well as creates a widely spread controversy over whether or not euthanasia should become legalized in Canada. 2 Legalizing euthanasia would create many benefits for those who suffer from a terminal illness, giving them freedom and control over their own lives. Euthanasia should be legalized in Canada; this is because the euthanasia law is not consistently applied, it would create medical advances for Canada which would bring the country up to speed with other countries around the world, and legalizing euthanasia would benefit those who wish to die by preventing inhumane suicidal crimes from occurring. 3

Assisted suicide looks good and innocent on paper, but the legalization of mercy killing carries a dark side. Once that door is opened, it may not be easily closed. Regulations can be in place but fraud is rampant in insurance and in the medical field no matter how much it is regulated. In Taking Sides, Clashing Views in Lifespan Development, a statement is made that directly shows the slippery slope of legalized assisted suicide; “In the words of an Australian politician, when we are past our “best before” or “use by” date, we should be checked out quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible.” This view sums up the argument of why not. The mystery of life and death are taken away and humans become industrialized as a piece of meat. Legalization would also affect medical education and training of physicians. The goal of doctors is to save lives, but if euthanasia is legalized that could all change.

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

​The current legislation has caused issues for many Australians. This is illustrated in court in 2009, with then 49 year Christian Rossite. Christian Rossite was a quadriplegic after an automotive accident, and had asked his care provider if they would remove his PEG tube (feeding tube) from him, unsure if it was legal or not the care provider called on the Chief Justice in Western Australia, Wayne Martin who ruled in favour of Christian Rossite. Wayne Martin stated that Christian Rossite was ‘entitled to instruct his cares to remove a feeding tube from his stomach’ (2009, Martin), causing Christian Rossite to willingly starve to death. During this process Christian Rossite was reassured that the option to return to the PEG tube (feeding tube) was available, but chose to continue. Christian Rossite died from a chest infection soon after. His brother was quoted saying ‘Death I suspect comes as quite a relief for Christian’ (2009, Rossite), as Christian was also quoted saying ‘I have no fear of death- just pain. I only fear pain.’ (2009, Rossite). Christian Rossite died suffering, in pain from not only starving, but also a chest infection, this could have been prevented if there was sufficient legislation to allow Christian Rossite to die with peace.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can often get confused with one another and although both are 2 different practices, they share the same end goal; a peaceful death. Today, only a few countries in the entire world have legalized the practice of euthanasia, showing just how controversial the topic has become in recent years. Should someone be able to die just because they feel like it or should valid reasons be required? And who gets to decide whether an assisted suicide is allowed or not? The answers to questions like these are never simple but to guarantee the freedoms of liberty that were given to many in the form of government constitutions, all these questions and more must be answered. Although life on Earth is a gift that was

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

Debbie Purdy’s legal case illustrated a prime example of concerns over good quality of death. She suffered from Multiple Sclerosis, a chronic disease that degenerates the body over time and attacks the nervous central system. During her illness she launched a legal battle to clarify the law on assisted suicide and in 2009 finally won a ruling allowing her husband to support her in ending her life, should living become unbearable (BBC, 2014). Debbie argued that her personal experience with the reality of the disease “reinforced (her) conviction that we need to change the law and allow assisted dying when life is unbearable” (Purdy, 2015).

Euthanasia should and will hopefully be charged as murder in all cases. There is no exception for killing anyone even if they say they want to be killed. Nowdays it is very easy to forge anything especially an assisted suicide pleadge. The Australian Legal System is constructed so that it is practically impossible for some

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are

Host: Good evening and welcome to The View. For tonight's issue, arguments for and against Euthanasia being made legal in Australia will be presented to you. Taking the affirmative side I would like to introduce to you the professor in faculties of Law and Medicine from the University of Adelaide, Alexander Wyatt. On the negative side tonight, we have Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at University of South Australia, Kate Mansell. We invite Alexander Wyatt to present his affirmative view first.