Wait it out.

Euthanasia is an ethical dilemma between free will and empathy. Sure, it is not the way most people would phrase it, but that is what it boils down to – euthanasia is supported by empathic people who understand that in cases of imminent certain and painful death, it is not always justified to stretch the pain out so that the person would suffer. The end result (death after torture) does not change, only the amount of torture does. But since the person is often considered unfit or unable to make the decision oneself, others are given the chance to choose instead. ‘Others’ being relatives (in case of allowed euthanasia or DNR) or the local government (in case of fixed course of action if euthanasia becomes an option). Those that oppose euthanasia tend to stress the lack of free will – the person in question usually does not have a say in the matter, which causes someone else to ‘play God’, meaning decide when the person dies.

There are a few nuances about euthanasia, such as the possibility of misdiagnosis, experimental treatment, miraculous recoveries, etc. In essence, the situations where avoided euthanasia would allow recovery. After all, medicine is not an exact science, surprisingly much of it is a sophisticated method of trial and error – there are no surefire cures that work perfectly for every single person and there are diseases that are nearly impossible to diagnose before an autopsy. The high rate of successful treatments is owed to its sophisticated nature and centuries of experience – if three objects all look like ducks, quack like ducks, walk like ducks, then they probably are all objects of the same nature – ducks. Naturally a few odd swans happen to come along once is a while but they are more of a rarity.

Which is why in controlled situations where the patient is obviously slowly and painfully passing away, euthanasia is quite a charming option. In fact, it is very similar to the problem of ‘who wants to live forever’ – if life means constant torture, inability to do anything you want, unbearable pain… do you really want it? The main difference is that when you have to decide whether you wish to live forever, you make a decision about yourself. In the case of euthanasia, it is usually either you make the decision about somebody else or somebody else makes the decision about you (assuming you are involved).

It is important to bring out that attempted suicide is generally illegal and not thought of very fondly. Actual suicide is a bit harder to classify ‘illegal’ but that is also considered rather cowardly and humiliating. In other words, if the person is terminally ill with no hope of recovery, suicide (or the attempt thereof) would definitely be considered a really bad decision, a person is supposed to face his devils, not escape from them. And that puts euthanasia in a rather dim light – if the person in question should not decide to die, how can anyone else make that decision for him? Curiously enough, if mental torture leads a person to end his life, it is considered an atrocity. A person suffering from long-term physical torture (disease) is considered an atrocity. Therefore, suffering is demeaning, but ending the suffering is even worse. You’re welcome to choose which is the better of the two evils.

 

Quote from BBC about the Czech Breivik-sympathiser: “Neighbours described him as a shy and polite man, although there were complaints after a few minor explosions.”