Euthanasia: The Right To Take A Person's Life

Euthanasia or mercy killing or assisted suicide has been a controversial subject in may climes due to the moral, ethical, religious and legal issues surrounding it. 

Due to the controversial nature of  today's  topic it will be difficult to summarize it as short as possible. It is however quite  lengthy but worth your read . 

Euthanasia: The right to die- looks at the various perspectives to the debate

Reverend Thomas Omoikhudu, founder and Pastor of Rehoboth Praise Assembly, Dallas Texas, died on the 30th 0f January, 2015, Anderson Cancer Center, at the University of Texas in Houston from an euthanasia induced death.

As part of his treatment plan for myelofibrosis,  Rev. Omoikhudu underwent high dose chemotherapy followed by allogeneic stem cell transplantation from his matched sibling, Kate Omoikhudu.

Unfortunately, Rev. Omoikhudu lost his graft had to undergo a second allogeneic stem cell transplant from his sister. Graft failure is a medical emergency that may end in death if the patient does not undergo second stem cell transplantation.

Therefore Mrs.  Omoikhudu had to travel to the United States a second time in order to complete testing, evaluation and collection of her stem cells so that Rev. Omoikhudu could receive his transplant as soon as possible.

She took off to the United States and successfully completed the testing, evaluation and collection of her stem cells so that Rev. Omoikhudu  can receive his transplant. To cut a long story short, Reverend Tom Omoikhudu died after the wife ordered doctors to remove the life support in order to ease his husband to death.

The deceased sibling Kate Omoikhudu took exception to the deceased’s wife’s decision to remove the life support because God could do his healing even at the very last second insiting that no doctor or person has the right to induce mercy killing on a patient.

Her words: “My Brother was very ill and had to help him with a transplant in order to ease his illness and get well. I did this for him because he was a man of God and I believed from the depth of my heart that God would heal him . Unfortunately, his wife ordered the doctors to remove the life support. Since my brother died, my life has not been the same. He told me so many lofty things he was going to do whenever he gets well. I loved him so much and it is still a shock to me that he has gone. Euthanasia is evil and a medical practice from the pit of hell. It should never be allowed in medicine. I had faith that God would heal my brother. But the wife was faithless hence she ordered the removal of the life support. My consolation is that my brother is in Heaven in the bosom of the Lord, she said.

Discussions on euthanasia usually revolve around medical, legal and moral issues geared at determining the extent to which a physician may feel obliged to accede to the request of the terminally ill patient to bring to a graceful end his or her pain and suffering by assisting the patient to die. In some jurisdictions, physicians are statutorily conceded such rights in spite of the Hippocratic Oath. But the conservatively religious would have none of such as life is seen as sacred which only the Creator could terminate at the chosen time.

Imagine that you are suffering from a disease that is terminal, debilitating, and very painful. Should you have the right to die when you wish rather than live in continued agony? Should your doctor be legally free to help you take your own life, perhaps by prescribing some pills and telling you their fatal dosage? Or should the law forbid anyone – including doctors – to assist in the suicide of another human being? These are just some of the questions that surround the issue of physician-assisted suicide, a widely debated ethical issue in modern medicine.

6

0

Euthanasia is widely practiced in the medical field by doctors and physicians. It is done to relieve extreme pain and suffering a patient is experiencing especially when death is certain for the patient. It can be done by voluntary approval of patient or discretion of the doctor.

Death is a unique experience for all. It is of central importance in all cultures, but its interpretation varies from society to society. Scientific and medical advances offer the promise of making living easier; however, they also raise fears that dying will be prolonged, undignified, painful, and ruinously expensive.

The “right to die” or “how to die” has become a crucial matter of concern for both terminally-ill patients and health professionals in recent times due to developments in medical technology and perceptions of death. These perceptions vary within and between cultures, religions, philosophy, medicine and the law. The pertinent question therefore is this: Does a terminally ill individual have the “right” to decide how and when to end his/her life?

Should it be lawful for a doctor to end a suffering patient’s life on request, either by administering a lethal injection or by assisting the patient to commit suicide? Does a person with terminal sickness and in serious pain and distress have the right to terminate his/her life? Fundamentally, must the state compel a patient to endure a protracted and painful death in this day and age in view of the constitutional rights to dignity and self-determination as guaranteed in the various human right instruments?

There are no clear answers depending on which side of the divide one is thus euthanasia remains a divisive topic, with different interpretations of its meaning, practice, and morality abound.

Those who favour active euthanasia and a patient’s right to die do not acknowledge a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. They assert that the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment cannot be distinguished in principle from affirmative steps to hasten a patient’s death. In both situations, they argue, a person intends to cause the patient’s death, acts out of compassionate motives, and causes the same outcome. In their view, turning off a life-sustaining respirator switch and giving a lethal injection are morally equivalent actions.

Opponents of active euthanasia argue that it undermines the value of, and respect for, all human life; erodes trust in physicians; desensitises society to killing; and contradicts many people’s religious beliefs. Moreover, they maintain that the intentions and nature of active and passive euthanasia are not essentially the same. In active euthanasia, a person directly intends to cause death and uses available means to achieve this end. In passive euthanasia, a person decides against using a certain form of treatment and then directs that such treatment be withdrawn or withheld, accepting but not intending the patient’s death, which is caused by the underlying illness.

While people cite differing reasons for choosing to end their own lives, those suffering from a terminal illness typically state that a serious disorder or disease has adversely affected their quality of life to the point where they no longer wish to continue living. Under such circumstances, patients may have been diagnosed with a degenerative, progressive illness such as ALS, Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, or Alzheimer’s disease. Patients with such illnesses often fear, with good reason, a gradual loss of the quality of life in the future as the disease or disorder progresses, or they might already have lost a good deal of their independence and thus might require continuous care. Some feel that this loss of autonomy causes an unacceptable loss of personal dignity. Others realise that they will be dying in the near future and simply want to have total control over the process. Some point out that in addition to physical considerations, they do not want to diminish their assets by incurring large medical costs as their death approaches. They feel that they ought to have the option to die sooner and to pass on their assets to their beneficiaries.

Euthanasia and Religion

The official Roman Catholic Church is against euthanasia and says it is a crime. Protestants toe this line. Hindus think that, even though helping a person end a painful life may be good, it interferes with the cycle of death and rebirth. In Islam, all forms of euthanasia are forbidden.

In Japan more than half of all Shintoists think that doctors should be allowed to help a person die if they ask for it.

The Catholic Church is one of many religious organisations that oppose euthanasia.

Basing its arguments on passages from the Bible, Catholic theology has for many centuries opposed all forms of suicide. Catholicism argues that innocent human life may not be destroyed for any reason whatsoever. Those who deny existence of a creator can however maintain a different strict view.

Is euthanasia a sin before God being that it is to relieve the patient from unnecessary suffering?

Sunday Mirror spoke to Apostle John E .Okoh-Esele, founder and Senior Pastor at Viva Christian Mission International, who corroborates the Papacy’s stance on euthanasia and relates the biblical Job’s ordeal to buttress his point and counter components of euthanasia.

His words: “God has given us life and only he has the right to give us death. There is a time to be born and a time to die which no humans should hold the power to control.

“If a person is in a state of sedation, they still biologically exist and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its natural conclusion.

“Humans always want to tempt God and justify sin. The person that is undergoing pains today if spared may still survive and be miraculously healed, even if God is able to raise the dead how much more a body with life, we are not in position to kill all in the name of relieving an individual of pain, take instance of people who are terribly ill around you in the past who later recovered and become healthy, so it’s none of our business to kill in order to remove pain.

”The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up”. 1Sam 2:6

“The book of Job is the story of a normal human being who is beset by misfortune and suffering. Job is still held up as a model of patient endurance in the midst of unimaginable personal loss and unrelenting physical pain.

“It is said that although nearly everything Job valued had been taken from him – his children, health, reputation, and wealth – he never wavered in his fidelity to God. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of his losses, the narrator informs us that he neither “charged God with wrongdoing” nor “sinned with his lips” (1:22; 2:10). And when confronted by God at the end of the drama in the midst of a terrible storm, Job appears to accept God’s reply to his grievances humbly, and even to repent of having mistakenly believed that God had become his enemy (42:1-6). Because Job remained loyal, God therefore chose to reward him with twice as much as he had before, so that his latter days were even better than his former (42:10-12). With his body fully restored to health, a rehabilitated reputation, and “10 new children to replace those who were lost,” it is often assumed that Job lived “happily ever after,” until, at the ripe old age of 140, God’s devoted servant was finally laid to rest with his ancestors. And the moral of the story? When misfortune strikes, remain faithful to God, and he will remain faithful to you. Persevere through adversity, and be comforted in the knowledge that God will not give you more than you can handle. Indeed, for those like Job who do not waver in their loyalty to God, the outcome of any of life’s trials must have a happy ending.

“For, life in this world teaches us that patient endurance amid suffering often is not rewarded, the cries of people in pain frequently go unheard, and fidelity to God is just as likely to result in unhappiness as it is in happiness.”

Regardless of what side prevails in the debate, the exchange of ideas that it creates may lead to a greater understanding of the difficult choices surrounding death in our time.

Euthanasia debate

There is a cultural dimension to the issue of euthanasia in Nigeria. Nigeria is a multiethnic nation with a diverse culture. Law is organic and functional in human societies, however it functions differently from one society to the other. Under the Nigerian culture and from a sociological perspective, euthanasia has been recognised as a viable option. A proverbial saying in the Yoruba dialect states, “Iku ya ju esin lo.” Literally interpreted, it means “Death is preferable to ridicule.” Patients who are terminally ill and in an intolerable situation because of physical or mental incapacity will not wish to remain in a deplorable condition that will bring about shame and pity from a cultural perspective. Moreover, family members, out of pity, may not wish to see the patient in agony.

Some people argue that mercy killing is okay for terminally ill adults and everyone has a right to decide when their life should end.

If the quality of life has become so bad, a person may feel too much physical or emotional pain.

Other people take this even further and argue that terminally ill children should also be allowed to die.

Proponents argue that if euthanasia is allowed then people who are terminally ill, critically injured or simply old may well feel compelled to choose and option they don’t really want to take. If euthanasia is allowed in some cases these people whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a lot of money may well feel that they are not worth the cost of keeping them alive. This is not something we would want anyone to feel as in essence it takes away their freedom of choice on the matter.

Historically, mankind has been sharply divided along the lines of those deeply favorably disposed to the right of a patient to euthanasia and assisted suicide and those against. Advocates on both sides of the divide are deeply convinced in the rightness of their convictions.

Those who are against euthanasia may argue for the sanctity of life, while proponents of euthanasia rights emphasize alleviating suffering, and preserving bodily integrity and self-determination.

Sometimes it is not clear if an ill person really wants to die. Doctors have a problem with euthanasia because they have sworn an oath that does not allow them to take part in the killing of people.

According to euthanasia supporter, Ezekiel Emmanuel,  proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments: a) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate; b) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer; c) the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect–is unreasonable or unsound); and d) permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and US states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalised, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.

Similarly, Emmanuel notes that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia: a) not all deaths are painful; b) alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available; c) the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and d) legalising euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope, which will lead to unacceptable consequences.

“I think that mercy killing should be made legal as long as the client has a very short life expectancy. Cancer patients are often given a rough estimate of when they are going to die which I don’t think is fair for them and their families. Cancer patients after given their expected date to die, are pretty much waiting to die instead of living their life like they usually do. If you gave people the option to end their life at a certain time it will take away a lot of the disappointment death brings.

“If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to alleviate symptoms often have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation. It is not as if they are really ‘living’ during this time; they are merely waiting to die. They should have the right to avoid this kind of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way.

“I think it should be legalised because a person suffering from deadly disease like cancer can’t bear the pain. He is suffering with his life and the doctor said the person will live more days then I think mercy killing should be legal. In this way we get the patient free from pain.

Legal issues concerning euthanasia in Nigeria

West’s Encyclopaedia of American Law states that “a ‘mercy killing’ or euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide” and is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient.

In United Kingdom and Wales as well as under common law euthanasia is treated as murder. This is also the case here in Nigeria. Under Nigeria criminal system a person who kills another at the other’s request will be liable to be charged for murder because consent is not a defence to murder.

The penal laws in Nigeria are governed by statute. Under the Penal Code applicable in Northern Nigeria, and Criminal Code applicable in Southern Nigeria. The term euthanasia is not used in the penal laws in Nigeria. The killing of a human being by another is a crime under homicide, amounting to murder or manslaughter, depending on the intent with which the killing is done. The penal laws do not distinguish between a killing that is carried out with the assistance of a physician or a request emanating from a patient or the state of the patient’s health.  The effect is that euthanasia is murder.

With the statutory penal laws in place, however, such acts would be regarded as murder. It is clear that there is no legal framework in place in Nigeria to address the fact that some people who are terminally ill could request assistance to die. The truth is that euthanasia is carried out illegally in Nigeria. Informal sources have confirmed that doctors and relatives usually are not deterred from carrying out the act even with the criminal law in place. Euthanasia is therefore carried out without articulated regulations. As a result, the criminal law does not protect the vulnerable from unethical practices of unscrupulous persons who carry out the act.

When life-sustaining treatment is discontinued, whether on the ground of medical futility or patient autonomy, there can be uneasiness about such actions. This often stems from failing to distinguish clearly between causing the patient’s death or merely allowing the patient to die. In the typical scenario of a permanently unconscious ventilator patient, the patient is alive until the physician removes the ventilator, whereupon the patient soon dies. The proximity of the patient’s death to the physician’s removal of the ventilator leads some physicians to wonder whether they have indeed caused the patient’s death. By contrast, in the case where the ventilator is never utilised, death is neither caused nor precipitated by the physician but is instead the result of the patient’s disease process. Because of this, many physicians are more comfortable with not starting treatment than with stopping it.

Legal experts point out that under Nigeria criminal system a person who kills another at the other’s request will be liable to be charged for murder because consent is not a defence to murder.

Consent has not been accepted as a defence in all criminal law cases. However, unlike cases of rape and stealing, the defence of consent has not been accepted in murder or euthanasia cases. According to Judge C. Gray in Commonwealth v. Mink, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that “The life of every human being is under the protection of the law and cannot be lawfully taken by himself or by another with his consent except by legal authority.” The right to life is considered so sacred that it cannot be terminated at will or with consent. Under the common law in the United Kingdom, life was held to be so sacred and suicide was considered such a crime against the laws of God and man that the goods of such an offender were forfeit to the king, and the offender’s body was given an ignominious burial on the highway. Such an offender was deemed a murderer and felon. This law now has been repealed as a result of contemporary attitudes that suicidal action should not be the legitimate concern of the criminal law. However, this reform in the law was not extended to the activities of persons who in any way assisted in the suicide of a person who consented to be killed.

Although ear piercing, tattooing, and circumcision have been held to be lawful in many jurisdictions, consent in a case of euthanasia is not a defence in law. Although commenting on the case of R. v. Wilson, Nash argued that the accused was not motivated by any aggressive intent, and his activities were not designed to cause injury but to assist the victim in what she regarded as acquisition. Comparing this argument to a case of euthanasia, a patient who requests and consents to a dignified death does so to escape a heroic measure and opt for a dignified death. The doctor who carries out the act of assistance in most cases does so not by any aggressive intent, but out of pity. However, the law in many jurisdictions does not sustain this argument. The issue of consent still plays an important role in all jurisdictions where euthanasia has been legalised. As a safeguard to unethical and indiscriminate killing, the voluntary consent of the patient is a paramount consideration in lawful euthanasia.

Section 33 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution provides for the right to life and states further that no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty. The effect of this provision is that everyone including a patient has a right to life and the section imposes a duty on everyone, including the health care provider to take reasonable/absolute care when treating the patient and must ensure that death does not result as a consequence of such treatment. In this wise, a patient must not be subjected to medical experiment with the resultant effect of causing death of the patient. Since a patient has a right to life, this imposes a corresponding duty on his health care personnel not to act in such a way that will deprive such a person his right to life. If in the course of treatment, medical personnel act negligently in such a way that causes the death of a patient, such a medical officer may be prosecuted either for the offence of murder or manslaughter depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The right to life is considered scared that it cannot be terminated at will or with consent of the patient.

Does the right of a patient include the right to die?

Another important issue emanating from the rights of a surgical patient is the current debate whether such rights include a “right to die.” The “right to die” or “how to die” has become a crucial matter of concern for both terminally-ill patients and health professionals in recent times due to development in medical technology and perceptions of death. These perceptions vary within and between cultures, religions, philosophy, medicine and the law. The pertinent question therefore is this: Does a terminally ill individual have the “right” to decide how and when to end his/her life? It has attracted heated debate within medical, legal, religious and social circle with many arguing that there is nothing wrong legalizing it if it is voluntarily requested by a patient. Conversely, many more argue that it is morally wrong and therefore should not be legalized in any legal system. There are many arguments around this complex issue which is fuelled by a number of social, medical and legal factors or developments[126].

Despite major advances in medicine and palliative care in the modern days, many patients still die in pain and distress. In this critical condition, some often entreat their doctors to put an end to their suffering by terminating their lives or by helping them to kill themselves. While some people may think that there is nothing wrong or unlawful for a doctor to end a suffering patient’s life on request, others oppose the idea on the ground that human life is sacrosanct and also because of the attendant gross abuses which might follow if euthanasia is legalized. This debate always attracts divergent and contradictory views. It is against this background asserted that the issue of euthanasia has invested modern legal systems with numerous unresolved problems.

It is however necessary to mention that in some country such as the Netherlands and the State of Oregon in the United States, a patient has such a “right to die.” Euthanasia is allowed in the American State of Oregon by virtue of the Death with Dignity Act 1994. The Act allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administration, lethal medications. Termination of one’s life in accordance with this Act does not constitute suicide. Under the Act, a person who is seeking physician-assisted suicide would have to meet certain criteria.

Similarly, the Netherlands law permits voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). The term euthanasia when used in the Netherlands refers to voluntary active euthanasia and other classifications of euthanasia are rarely meant. A Dutch Government bill which has given statutory force to the guidelines permitting VAE was passed by the Dutch lower parliament in November 2000 and by the upper house in April 2001. The Act provides inter alia: VAE must be performed in accordance with “careful medical practice.” Requests must be voluntary, well considered, persistent, and emanating from patients who are experiencing unbearable suffering without hope of improvement, and the doctor and the patient must agree that VAE is the only reasonable option. At least, one independent physician must be consulted, who must see the patient and give written opinion on the case.

Euthanasia is not yet legalized in Nigeria, apart from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which guarantees the individual’s right to life, both the Criminal Code and the Penal Code prohibit killing of human being. Thus, killing or hastening the death of another person in Nigeria no matter the intent is always treated as a murder case. It is long settled that neither the defence of necessity or duress can avail the accused. Therefore, the position in Nigeria is that a patient does not have the “right to die” and any person, who assists a person to die, is liable to prosecution.

Finally, the world has already become a place where most people try to take the easy way out of things. If all people gave up on life when things got a bit tough, we would all have little or no hope left, and a world with no hope would become a dark place to live.

Share your opinion.

Credits