THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY
Although the idea of choosing the moment of death, when no longer avoidable, and of dying without having to endure pain, has existed since Antiquity, the medical advances of recent decades have turned this question into a subject of public debate, particularly in the societies of rich countries, which have more resources for prolonging life, even during its inevitable decline.
Euthanasia (which literally means “good death”) is understood as medical action taken to end the life of a person suffering from a terminal or irreversible illness. It is therefore distinguished from assisted suicide, consisting of providing a sick person with the necessary elements to end his or her own life.
Euthanasia is a controversial question involving public health, private health, moral principles (religious or otherwise) and the legal framework. Generally speaking, we could resume the situation as it stands today by saying that euthanasia is only legal in Belgium, Holland and the state of Oregon in the United States, while public opinion in many countries is gradually inclining towards its acceptance and legalisation. It is also an open secret that the under-cover practice of euthanasia is making headroads in hospital life, at least in the case of certain terminally ill patients whom, according to a large number of medical professionals, often request that their death be accelerated.
Ever since religion lost its moral hegemony, questions like euthanasia have been considered in different ways by public opinion. The main argument in favour of euthanasia is, without a doubt, that of personal autonomy, of having the ability to decide the terms of something as intimate as the end of our own lives. Those opposed to euthanasia base their arguments, among other reasons, on protection of the most vulnerable or of those less capable of taking decisions.
However, measures such as the living will, in which the sick person clearly states his or her wishes in the case of a terminal situation or of intolerable suffering, may be the way to avoid the imperfections of a system under which euthanasia could take place without the patient’s consent. Moreover, the danger of a mistaken application of euthanasia, with respect to a person’s wishes, no longer exists when he or she freely, explicitly and repeatedly requests it. In these cases, in the opinion of some, there would still be ethical and legal objections, such as the absolute value of human life or the absence in legislation of a “right to die”.
In the European Union, to mention an area in which public opinion is increasingly more in favour of legalising euthanasia, clearly restrictive Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1418 (1999) remains in effect. The EU Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights recently opposed the revision of this recommendation proposed by the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs.
This political debate, together with various rulings by different courts, rather than definitively strengthening one or the other stance, reflects that this is a particularly important question related to the profound changes being experienced throughout by contemporary society.