Why we should make euthanasia legal

Doctors will today debate the existing laws on euthanasia. Here Dr Kailash Chand
explains the reasons behind his motion for the introduction of new legislation to allow
terminally ill people the choice of an assisted death

The issue of euthanasia, or assisted dying, is incredibly controversial and there are
legitimate concerns on either side of the debate. Today I will propose a motion to the
British Medical Association's annual conference in Liverpool, which states:

This meeting supports the introduction of legislation to allow people who are terminally
ill but 'mentally competent', the choice of an assisted death. Further, the law should not
criminalize people who accompany those who make rational decisions to end their
suffering

The motion will seek to take the issue forward in a compassionate and fair way that I
believe will serve the interests of the terminally ill and our society.

The starting point has to be in the law, which at present is failing, as shown by the
recurrence of cases in the courts that often place relatives, already dealing with the
painful loss of a loved-one, in the middle of distressing legal battles. There is clearly a
desire – whether we like it or not – among a number of patients at the end of often
terrible battles with debilitating, incurable diseases to end their suffering with the support
of their relatives. To deny this right is to prolong the suffering for individuals and
families, something that I can simply not condone.

I do accept though that this is not like any other clinical decision – and that if society is
to offer this solemn choice it must also build in safeguards to its laws that not only rectify
the inadequacies of the current situation, but also protect the vulnerable, the weak and
all those – doctors and nurses included – who are involved in this incredibly difficult
situation.

As a start we must enact legislation to decriminalise acts of euthanasia and physician-

assisted suicide. Some of the reasons that are compelling enough for us to change our
laws are:
Prevention of cruelty and protection of human rights: To allow a terminally ill
individual to end their life is the only humane, rational and compassionate choice.
The current prohibitions require a person with great physical and/or mental
suffering to continue to endure their suffering against their wishes, which cannot
be right. The right to life and the right to private and family life under the European
convention on human rights should be interpreted broadly to include decisions
about quality of life, including decisions about death if the life is no longer one of
quality.

Regulatory Control: The terminally ill are travelling abroad to countries where the
right to end of life in terminal cases is recognised and is lawful. We cannot
regulate the laws of foreign lands. We must make provisions within our laws to
regulate this issue within our boundaries under our control and supervision. We
must not prosecute loved ones for "encouraging or assisting" suicide who enable
or assist a terminally ill individual to travel abroad to end his or her life lawfully.

Ambiguity in the application of the current law: The current law conflicts with
the law as it is being enforced. If the laws as written were being enforced, over a
hundred people would have been prosecuted for accompanying their loved ones
abroad to help them end their lives. This ambiguity and uncertainty leaves all
concerned, including physicians, unprotected.

Discriminatory effect of the laws: The ability of the wealthy to travel to countries
where it is lawful for the terminally ill to end their lives has the discriminatory
impact of treating the haves and have-nots unequally.

The Safeguards:

Many people are opposed to legislation that would allow "end of life" choices. But
our concerns relating to abuses and protection of the vulnerable can be addressed
by ensuring that certain objective safeguard conditions are met prior to allowing a
 terminally ill individual from exercising his or her right to die with dignity. Some of
the safeguards include the following:

• The patient must be terminally ill.

• The patient must be an adult.

• The patient must be mentally competent.

• The patient must be in severe pain.

• Two independent physicians must be satisfied that the above conditions

are present.

Here are some examples of countries in the world where euthanasia is legal:

The Netherlands: According to the organization euthanasia.ws, in 2001 the "Law

on the verification of the termination of the application to the own law and the aid
to suicide" was approved, which came into force on April 1, 2002. Among the
requirements they are interested in the resident sea of Holland, that the suffering
of the sea is unbearable, that the person is safe and that more doctors have been
consulted.

Luxembourg: Euthanasia was decriminalized in that country in 2008, according to

euthanasia.ws.

Switzerland: In the case of this country, euthanasia is a crime, but not assisted
suicide. According to euthanasia.ws, this process does not have to be assisted by
a doctor, since the patient is prescribed a lethal medication.

United States: Only legal in some states, such as Oregon, Washington, Montana
and Vermont; all with a series of restrictions to follow.

In conclusion, the only humane choice is to allow individuals who are suffering to
choose to end their suffering. Further, the discrepancies in the laws as they exist and
how they are being enforced have led to uncertainty. This uncertainty leaves the
doctors, their patients and patient's loved ones unprotected. If we do not address these
issues openly and head-on, we will have continued uncertainty and unregulated practice
of euthanasia or assisted suicide with the fear of prosecution hanging over the heads of
all concerned.

The goals of the medical profession should continue to remain one of saving lives but
this should not be at the expense of compassion and a terminally ill individual's right to
choose to end his or her life and die with dignity.