Should euthanasia be legal?

Doctors should use anesthetics to alleviate suffering

Question: Should euthanasia be legal?
Position‹2 of 2: No, euthanasia should be illegal
Argument‹3 of 5›: Doctors should use anesthetics to alleviate suffering

Doctor first and foremost should administer anesthetics to patient’s system to alleviate his suffering, instead of an outright euthanasia.

The argument

The argument begins from the feature that distinguishes euthanasia from every other medical intervention: euthanasia cannot be undone. Any other treatment that proves mistaken can be stopped, reversed or replaced; this one forecloses every subsequent decision, including decisions that would have been taken on information not yet available. From there it examines the justification usually offered. If the main reason for the legalization of euthanasia is alleviating the pain of a terminally ill patient, then the administration of opiates or other pharmacological measures aimed at minimizing suffering reach that goal. This is the decisive step: where an irreversible act and a reversible one achieve the same end, the reversible one is preferable however the underlying ethical questions are settled, because the case for the irreversible act rests on its being the only available means to that end — and on this account it is not. The argument then sets out what the alternative avoids. Administration of anesthetic is always preferable to euthanasia since it doesn't create ethical dilemmas, doesn't put a responsibility of deciding in matters of life and death on physicians, and keeps the possibility of recovery open. Each of the three concerns a different party. The first leaves untouched the contested question of whether a life may deliberately be ended. The second bears on the profession, since a doctor asked to end a life is placed in a role no clinical training prepares them for, and one that sits awkwardly beside the obligations owed to every other patient. The third bears on the patient, for whom any prognosis carries uncertainty, and whose remaining options exist only while they are alive. Because the suffering can be addressed without ending life, there's no justification for ending a patient's life, and euthanasia should remain illegal.

Context

The practice of euthanasia is often linked or put in opposition to palliative care as both concern themselves with the well-being of terminally ill patients. There is no consensus in the hospice community on the legalization of euthanasia.

Premises

[P1]Euthanasia is irreversible, whereas anesthetics and palliative drugs can alleviate a terminally ill patient's suffering without ending life. [P2] If suffering can be addressed by means that preserve life and the possibility of recovery, there is no justification for ending the patient's life instead. [P3] Using anesthetics rather than euthanasia avoids placing life-and-death decisions on physicians and sidesteps the associated ethical dilemmas. [C] Therefore, euthanasia should remain illegal, since adequate pain relief through anesthetics is always the preferable alternative.

Counter-arguments

There are diseases and conditions for which palliative care is not a viable alternative. Palliative care cannot stop some patients from experiencing constant vomiting, breathlessness or paralyzation. Palliative care also does not resolve the issue of patients' dependency on others.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Not all patients can be relieved from pain by palliative care.