In July 2008, Nitschke said that he no longer believed voluntary euthanasia should be only

available to the terminally ill, but the elderly people afraid of getting old and incapacitated
should also have a choice 38
Nitschke was detained for nine hours together with his wife by British Immigration officials at
Heathrow Airport after their arrival for a workshop visit to the UK on 2nd May, 2009. Upon
series of questions, Nitschke was told that he and his wife were detained because the workshop
may go against British law. Prior to that, their visit to the UK was to lecture on voluntary
euthanasia and end-of-life choices. In 2009, Nitschke helped to promote Dignified Departure, a
13-hour, pay-television program on doctor-assisted suicide in Hong-kong and mainland China.
The program aired in October in China on the Family Health Channel, run by the official China
National Radio. Nitschke believes that the right to control ones death is as fundamental as the
right to control ones life. In 1996, he received the Rainier Foundation Humanitarian Award and
in 1998, he was again recognized as the Australian Humanist of the year by the Council of
Australian Humanist Societies. He is the author of the books killing me softly: Voluntary
Euthanasia And To The Peaceful Pill which was published in 2005 and The Peaceful Pill
Handbook which was also published in January, 2007.
Despite the above mentioned names (Jack Kevorkian and Philip Nitschke) who have been well
noted for their active association and involvement with euthanasia (mercy killing), other people
in history must also be noted. The most notorious alleged mercy-killing to have occurred in the
United States was by Dr. H.N Sander who was charged with the mercy-killing of a cancerpatient, but was acquitted. 39 He admitted injecting air intravenously to a patient who was in
extremis but he continuously defended himself by saying that the person was already dead.
Also, in 1915, a young soldier called Simpson was found guilty of the murder of his severely ill
child. He was under great emotional strain: on leave, waiting for his unfaithful wife to return to
the neglected sick child. A man also drowned his seriously ill child who was suffering from
tuberculosis and gangrene of the face in 1927. He had been sitting up with her all night and the
judge in his summing-up recommended mercy and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of
38
39

th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Nitschke accessed on 10 June,2012

Hugh Trowell (1973); The unfinished debate on euthanasia, pg.21

22 | P a g e

murder. Again, in 1934, another mercy-killer was reprieved in England. A woman was charged
with the murder of her 31-year old imbecile son. She was distraught not knowing who would
look after the imbecile son when she went into the hospital for a big operation. Although
condemned for murder, she was reprieved two days later as compared to the overwrought father
who gassed his deformed imbecile daughter in 1946 and was found guilty of murder but the
sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
These cases are set forth in some detail as examples of mercy-killing because there has been
some confusion in the popular mind between mercy-killing and euthanasia. 40

40

Hugh Trowell (1973); The unfinished debate on euthanasia, pg.22

23 | P a g e

SECTION FOUR
4.1 THE PROS AND CONS OF EUTHANASIA
The death and dying debates, especially where they focus on Physician assisted suicide
(euthanasia and suicide) involve some central arguments which includes arguments in favour of
and arguments against the legalization and practice of euthanasia (Physician-assisted suicide).
The debate over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide emerged into public consciousness in
the mid-1970s and the debate got off to a rousing start as philosophers, doctors, theologians,
public-policy theorists, journalists, social advocates and private citizens became embroiled in the
debate. On the one side were liberals, who thought physician-assisted suicide and perhaps
voluntary active euthanasia were ethically acceptable and should be legal and on the other side
were conservatives, who believed assisted dying was immoral or dangerous to legalize as a
matter of public policy. Below are some of the principal arguments for and against the
legalization and practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

4.2 Principal Arguments for Practicing and Legalizing Euthanasia (Pros):

4.2 i. The argument from autonomy: The strongest argument in favour of active voluntary
euthanasia is based on respect for individual autonomy. The claim of autonomy involves that we
all possess a right to self-determination in matters profoundly touching on such religious themes
as life, death, and the meaning of suffering. 41 On this view, it is a matter of basic human dignity
to be given the right to decide about the circumstances of our own lives and our deaths. The
principle of autonomy is an expression of the essentially Kantian idea that what is of paramount
importance for my life is that it consists of my own choices, for good or ill.

42

According to

Kant, it is not permissible to treat people as a means rather than as ends-in- themselves, even if
this will involve attempting to use them as a means to their own well-being. Taking autonomy
(literallySelf-governance) seriously means acknowledging individual sovereignty over all
purely self-regarding acts. Determining the circumstances of ones own death, according to this
41

Margaret P. Battin, Rosamond Rhodes, and Anita Silvers (1998), Physician assisted suicide: expanding the debate,
pg. 281
42
Dickenson, D., Johnson, M. and Katz, J.S (2000), Death, dying and bereavement, pg. 272

24 | P a g e

principle, should be allowed provided that it is a self-regarding act, and if so like other selfregarding acts, it should be exempt from the interference of others 43

4.2 ii. The argument from relief of pain and suffering: Physician assisted suicide and
euthanasia are merciful acts that deliver terminally ill patient from a painful and protected death.
If the Physician is unable to relieve the patients suffering in other ways acceptable to the
patient and the only way to avoid such suffering is by death, then as a matter of mercy, death
may be brought about. 44
According to the utilitarian, acts are morally right in so far as they promote happiness and
alleviate unhappiness, and wrong in so far as they cause or allow others to suffer needlessly.
Even according to the traditional ethic of the medical profession, physicians have a solemn duty
not merely to extend life whenever possible (and desirable), but also to alleviate pain and
suffering whenever possible. 45 Hence, those in view of this argument think that euthanasia and
Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized and in relation to the golden rule do as you would
be done requires that we provide aid and help to those in distress and in particular provide
appropriate relief from suffering and a corollary of the harm principle is that the denial of a right
to die is unfair and cruel and no one should be obliged to endure unbearable suffering. 46

4.3 Principal Arguments Against Practicing and Legalizing Euthanasia(Cons):

It must be noted that not everyone who oppose to the legalization of euthanasia is opposed to the
practice of euthanasia. Those who oppose euthanasia in principle will of course oppose its
legalization, but there are some who, while supporting euthanasia in principle have misgivings
about its institutionalization. Thus, there are some who defend the right of people to choose the
time and circumstances of their death but who find the requirement of satisfying a medical
43

Dickenson, D., Johnson, M. and Katz. J.S (2000), Death, dying and bereavement, pg. 273
Margaret P. Battin (2005), Ending life: ethics and the way we die, Pg 29
45
Margaret P. Battin, Rosamond Rhode, and Anita silvers (1998), Physician assisted suicide: expanding the debate,
pg 281
46
Dickson, D., Johnson, M. and Katz, J.S (2000), Death, dying and bereavement, Pg. 274
44

25 | P a g e

bureaucracy that their decision is sound both onerous and offensive. Below are some of the
reasons and arguments against practising and legalizing euthanasia:

4.3 i. The argument from the intrinsic wrongness of killing: The taking of a human life is
wrong and since suicide too is killing, then suicide is also wrong because the Holy
commandment states that Thou shall not kill. Most members of this group with this same view
tend to harbor distinctly religious objections to suicide and euthanasia, viewing them as
violations of Gods dominion over human life. Killing in itself is simply wrong, whether or not it
is done out of respect for the patients autonomy or out of concern for her suffering, killing is
understood as morally wrong in virtually all cultures and religious system. Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and many other religious traditions prohibit killing;
so do the moral and legal codes of virtually all social systems. 47
Although almost all major world traditions share this view about the intrinsic wrongness of
killing, the Roman Catholic has been most active in the Political debate over physician-assisted
suicide.
According to the teachings of Catholicism, suicide violates the biblical commandment Thou
shall not kill. Self-killing can never be permitted, even in painful terminal illness, although if it
is caused by depression or other psychopathology, it may be excused from ecclesiastical
penalties like denial of funeral rites.

48

4.3 ii. The argument from the Integrity of the Profession: Doctors and Physicians are
prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath not to kill because the Physician is bound to save life and not
to take it and the participation of Physicians and doctors in such practices undermines their role
as healer and fatally compromises the physician-patient relationship. This again will undermine
the patients trust in the Physician because patients trust their physicians more when they know
that their physicians will help them, not desert them as they die.
47
48

Margaret P. Battin (2005), Ending life: ethics and the way we die, Pg. 21
Margaret P. Battin (2005), Ending life: ethics and the way we die, Pg. 22

26 | P a g e

4.3 iii. The argument from potential abuse (the slippery-slope argument): Permitting
physicians to assist in suicide, even in sympathetic cases may lead to situations in which patients
are killed against their will. Slippery-slope arguments involve predictive empirical issues about
possible future abuse. 49 Many have argued, for those in vulnerable groups and for instance,
Susan Wolf has sought to show that the impact of legalization would fall particularly on women,
Adrienne Ash was also worried about the impact on people with disabilities and Leslie Francis
was concerned for the elderly. Still others have pointed to the likely impact of legalization on
blacks and other racial minorities such as people with chronic illness, mental illness and on
people with developmental delays.

50

According to the Dutch cardiologist by name Richard Fenigsen, he intimated that quiet a number
of people were being killed against their will due to various reasons which includes their
(patients) families seeing them to be a burden both financially and socially and they being a cost
to governmental funds especially with the terminally ill patients from which that same fund
could have been used on other patients with a higher recovery rate.

4.3 iv The argument from the social limits of autonomy: One of the strongest objections to
euthanasia is that the autonomy which if is our duty to respect is not enjoyed by everyone. Even
if it is granted that respect for individual autonomy is of paramount importance, it nonetheless
applies only to socially empowered individuals or groups within society. There may be serious
problems and issues with the application of this principle to marginalized groups and especially
to individuals who are or can be exploited. Legalizing euthanasia, according to some, ignores the
social reality of marginalized groups and persons who might be exploited by unscrupulous
relatives or unscrupulous doctors. This is an essentially utilitarian argument drawing attention to
grave social consequences of legalizing the practice. With Mills harm principle which is
explicitly also for restrictions on an individuals freedom to act in cases where their act harms
others, opponents of euthanasia do acclaim that individual acts of self-destruction and the
medical assistance for such acts do in fact affect others and therefore are not pure self regarding.
49
50

Margaret P. Battin (2005), Ending life: ethics and the way we die, Pg. 26
Margaret P. Battin (2005), Ending life: ethics and the way we die, Pg. 26

27 | P a g e

The dispute about euthanasia on this point resembles another which arises in discussions of
pornography and prostitution. Some women claim a right to make commercial use of their bodies
as a matter of individual liberty. To this it has been replied that such choices do not affect them
alone but help to shape community attitudes about how women are perceived. In allowing
themselves to be viewed and used as sex objects, they are fostering degrading attitudes towards
all women. Despite we all have our basic right to decide for ourselves, we must also put it into
consideration that a choice to end our lives is an insult to God the Creator who gave life, and to
the society, which provides for the well being of its members of which we are all included and
hence part of the society.

28 | P a g e

SECTION FIVE
5.1 PALLIATIVE CARE AND ITS STRONG INFLUENCE OVER PEOPLES CHOICES
FOR EUTHANASIA
According to Palliative care specialists, many patients request for euthanasia due to the fear of
physical or psychological distress during the patients last days and with the widespread and
equitable availability of specialist palliative care services, this will help reduce patients requests
for euthanasia.
Palliative care or Palliative medicine are the labels given to the modern package of skills,
procedures and practices that have been sponsored and refined mainly within the hospice
movement.
Its application is not restricted to people who are dying. In practice, however, its combination of
pain relief and the reduction of fear and distress tends to be reserved for those at the terminal
stage of illness. Palliative care which is now a recognized medical speciality, focuses first on the
recognition, treatment, and prevention of pain and it practitioners advocate better attention to
pain management in terminally ill patients, more reliable assessment of pain, the use of
escalating, ladder type schedules of pain management and antecedent interception of pain before
it begins. Good palliative care is based on assessing what works in terms of relief for the
individual person and for most people, complementary therapies provide both physical relief and
mental comfort.
Palliative care has its origin in the modern hospice movement and it is concerned with the
physical, psychosocial and spiritual care of patients with life threatening disease and their
families, focusing on both the quality of the remaining life of the patient and on the support of
the family and those close the patient (Sounders 1996). To date, Palliative care has been focused
almost entirely on cancer patients but since their inception, some hospices have provided care for
patients with neurological conditions, particularly motor neuron disease and multiple sclerosis
and more recently for patients with AIDS/HIV. However, it has been recognized since the
beginning of modern hospice care that its principles may benefit patients dying from other
causes.The extension of palliative care beyond cancer has been advocated since at least 1980.
29 | P a g e