Legalising Euthanasia As A Controversial Topic In Australia

Euthanasia is defined as the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. The perennial issue of euthanasia has sparked much debate amongst doctors, groups and the public. Is it ethical for an individual who has no hope of recovery to have the right to decide how and when to end their life? Various religious groups, such as Catholicism, Buddhism, and Islam discuss this ethical dilemma. There are also different views from non-religious groups, for example, Compassion & Choices and Death with Dignity National Centre. In addition, ethical decision-making methods such as moral subjectivism and absolutism may impact individual’s views on euthanasia.

The discussion in Australia with respect to the moral issue of euthanasia has seen a myriad of perspectives. In 1980, the Catholic Church issued The Declaration on Euthanasia, which states that euthanasia is a “crime against life.” Catholics strongly oppose euthanasia, regardless if it is voluntary or not. It is seen as a violation of the law of God and a deliberate killing of a human person, which contradicts the commandment “You shall not kill.” In a similar fashion, Buddhism holds the position that euthanasia is wrong, since it exhibits that one’s brain is in a terrible state and that one has enabled physical enduring to cause mental torment. Muslims have the same dogma as Catholics and Buddhists that assisted dying is wrong. They accept that all human life is holy on the grounds that it is given by Allah, and that Allah picks to what extent every individual will live. As stated in the Bible, Tripitaka and the Qur’an, euthanasia contradicts all three of these religious perspectives.

Conversely, other non-religious associations such as Compassion & Choices and the Death with Dignity National Centre support euthanasia. Compassion & Choices is an organisation that uses advance care planning, end-of-life support, palliative care and medical aid. As Dolores Huerta, Civil Rights Activist stated “My lifelong work as an advocate for social justice has taught me that difficult moments require our utmost compassion, the wisdom to imagine walking in another person’s shoes and the ability to respect the wishes of others. I was proud to partner with Compassion & Choices and its affiliates when they led the successful legislative campaign to make the End of Life Option Act a reality in California. As a result of their efforts, terminally ill adults in California who want the option to avoid a lengthy and painful dying process can do so peacefully.’ Likewise, Death with Dignity National Centre is a nonpartisan non-profit organisation, originating in the US aiming to promote death with dignity laws based on their model legislation, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, both to provide an option for dying individuals and to stimulate nationwide improvements in end-of-life care. The Death with Dignity National Centre has been influential in drafting, passing, promoting, and defending all existing assisted death statutes in the U.S and these two independent associations conflict with the coexisting religious views.

In the controversial debate of euthanasia there are many ethical decision-making methods applied. For example, moral subjectivism, what an individual believes in right or wrong is so for that individual. No ones person’s opinion about morality is more correct than another. Although religious groups and non-religious groups have contrasting views and opinions, adopting a moral subjectivist approach, those who support allowing euthanasia, speak of individuals having a “right.” Compassion & Choices and The Death with Dignity National Centre support euthanasia and adopt a moral subjectivist approach, believing that individuals should be able to have their own choice. Strengths of moral subjectivism include that it is non-confrontational and does not argue “absolutes.” In spite of this, weaknesses of moral subjectivism are that beliefs on euthanasia are based off feelings and there is no higher court of view. Moreover, moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong. Morals are inherent and this can be viewed in the religious viewpoints on euthanasia, such as Catholicism, Buddhism and Islam. In Catholicism euthanasia is seen as a violation of the law of God and a deliberate killing of a human person, which contravenes the commandment “You shall not kill.” Buddhists and Muslims express the same dogma as Catholics and therefore, the Catholic, Buddhist and Islam religions have an absolute view and convey moral absolutism. Moral absolutism isn’t based on individual/group preferences, but rather on absolute and universal values. It allows different societies to share common values and provides a fixed ethical code, which gives clear moral judgments in situations where there is a need for ethical guidance. However, this decision-making method is flawed as it does not take into account cultural differences – absolutists can seem intolerant of cultural diversity. Individual lifestyles are not taken into account and moral absolutism does not consider the specific situation. Absolutism ignores the circumstances in which ethical judgements are made.

Furthermore, The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, initiated by the Death with Dignity National Centre has allowed doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for terminally ill patients for almost 20 years, and local doctor William Toffler is in Australia to tell Australians it has been a disaster. “It’s important that Australia does not make the same mistake, it’s fundamentally incompatible with the role of physician as a healer to be involved in assisted suicide and it’s caused mistrust between patients and their physicians.” This non-religious view opposed with Euthanasia is influential as it adds credibility to the debate against euthanasia and is independent from religious views. His statement has sparked much media attention with reputable traditional media outlet “The Guardian” reporting on this and social media on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram has influenced individuals to take a stance on euthanasia. Although this is a modern doctor who has influenced this debate, religions such as Catholicism, Buddhism and Islam have heavily influenced this debate since the creation of the sacred texts the Bible, Qur’an and Tripitaka pre 1200BC.

Overall, both religious and non-religious groups although have stark contrasting views on euthanasia and use different ethical decision-making methods, they both are able to strongly influence people through media and other methods. Euthanasia continues to be a controversial topic in Australia and around the world in 2019.