The ethical issues of euthanasia and the Dignitas Hospital case: How should human dignity be upheld?

Euthanasia, the practice of artificially hastening the death of a terminally ill patient in order to relieve their suffering, is a highly controversial ethical issue. In particular, the Swiss hospital Dignitas has been highly controversial for its practice of active euthanasia.

 

Euthanasia is the artificial hastening of death to relieve the suffering of a patient suffering from an incurable disease. As it is a sensitive issue involving human life, there has been a lot of controversy, especially the Severance Dignity Death case in 2009, which heated up the issue of euthanasia in Korea. Dignitas Hospital has recently become known for euthanasia. Dignitas Hospital is a hospital that practices ‘active and voluntary euthanasia’. The terms “active” and “voluntary” may be unfamiliar. There are different forms of euthanasia, and it’s important to distinguish between them, so before we talk about Dignitas, we’ll explain what euthanasia is.
There are two main types of euthanasia, depending on the means of death. There are two main types of euthanasia: active euthanasia, which uses drugs to directly cause death, and passive euthanasia, which uses life-prolonging devices such as ventilators and CPR to hasten the natural process of death. There are also different types of euthanasia based on whether the patient consents or not. Voluntary euthanasia is performed when a patient freely consents to his or her death without being coerced into the act. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is performed when the patient is unable to make a choice about life and death.
Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic around the world. In recent years, national and international public opinion has shifted in favor of passive and voluntary euthanasia. A recent survey found that 70% of people are in favor of passive euthanasia, and surveys in France, New Zealand, and elsewhere show that 70-80% of people are in favor of passive euthanasia. The idea that the right to self-determination over death should be respected and that the right to happiness of patients and their caregivers should not be sacrificed for pointless life-sustaining treatments is gaining momentum. However, active euthanasia, which involves taking away the rest of a person’s life, and involuntary euthanasia, which can be a death by choice, are banned in many countries. This is due to the potential for medical error, the potential for the good intentions of euthanasia to be abused, and the potential to reinforce a culture of disregard for life.
The positions of proponents and opponents of passive euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are sharply divided. Proponents argue that individuals have the right to their own body, life, and death, and that euthanasia is not the same as murder because it implies that they can choose their own death. They argue that euthanasia avoids ethical problems by stopping futile life-sustaining treatments and allowing people to die naturally, reduces the economic burden on patients and their caregivers, and guarantees the right to happiness. On the other hand, the opposing side cites the principle of the dignity of human life and the possibility of misdiagnosis, misuse, and abuse as the basis of their argument. They also argue that if the discussion of end-of-life or withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment is expanded, it will eventually create a social atmosphere in which external circumstances, such as economic conditions, will intervene and push patients toward death.
It’s hard to take a stand on euthanasia because neither the goal of happiness nor the absolute value of life can be prioritized. However, we can only strongly oppose active euthanasia, which is the act of forcibly taking away the remaining life of a human being, which can only be considered a form of murder. Active euthanasia is unavoidably ethically problematic because it’s not a natural death, but an artificial one. Voluntary active euthanasia can be considered suicide, and involuntary active euthanasia can be considered murder, both of which are ethically and socially unacceptable.
This is why the recent story about the Dignitas Hospital in Switzerland is so shocking. Dignitas Hospital is a Swiss hospital that specializes in assisted suicide and was founded to help terminally ill or terminally ill patients end their lives with dignity. Dignitas is the Latin word for “dignity” because it helps people who are dying to end their lives with dignity. The hospital allegedly helps patients who want to die by prescribing lethal doses of poison, a practice known as “assisted suicide. In effect, it’s “active euthanasia” with medical intervention, and it’s legalized. According to the hospital’s website, the legal basis for euthanasia is Article 115 of the Swiss Criminal Code. It reads as follows
“If a suicide is attempted or succeeds, a person who, with selfish motives, causes or assists another person to commit suicide shall be punished by imprisonment for up to five years.”
The hospital argues that it is not assisting suicide with a selfish motive, so there is nothing wrong with the law. The number of euthanasia cases at the hospital has been steadily increasing every year, with 144 people euthanized at the hospital in 2011 alone, and the cumulative total already exceeding 1,000. To be eligible for euthanasia, patients must first be certified by a doctor as incurable, be able to make their own death decisions, and pay an initiation fee and annual membership fee.
In Dignitas hospitals, a doctor’s declaration that a patient’s condition is incurable is all that is needed for legalized suicide. This is the most radical form of euthanasia and has been criticized internationally because it is available even to foreigners. It’s understandable that dying patients are in physical pain and desperation. However, active euthanasia is the act of giving up the rest of one’s life. From an existentialist perspective, death is inevitable and should be humbly accepted. If, as they say, pointless life support is contrary to the nature of death, it is even more contradictory to give up the rest of one’s life through active euthanasia at Dignitas Hospital. Furthermore, given the value of life itself, this is not only problematic on a personal level, but also raises many social issues. For example, the fact that the remaining life can be abandoned at the will of the individual creates a culture of disrespect for life, and the presence of socially successful people at Dignitas Hospital shows the potential for the Werther effect, or the possibility of triggering assisted suicide. The potential for misdiagnosis remains, and there is also the risk that the system could be abused, with people attempting suicide with falsified doctor’s reports.
No matter how painful life is, it cannot compare to the value of life. On a personal level, we need to reflect on the value of life and understand the tragedy of giving up on it. It is also important to create a favorable environment for good judgment, as some individuals may not be able to make good decisions due to pain. With the help of doctors to alleviate physical and mental pain, and a social atmosphere that encourages people to end their lives beautifully and wait for the end, rather than suicide, no one will choose the extreme option of relieving their fear of death by dying.
There is a saying, “Even if you roll in dog shit, it’s better to be alive. It means that no matter how hard life is, life itself is a happiness that cannot be compared to death, and it is a value that must be preserved. People who choose euthanasia contradict this proverb by claiming a “right to die” and call legal restrictions on euthanasia an “absurdity”. They argue that the prolongation of life by medical and technological advances that make it impossible to end life according to the laws of nature is a new “absurdity” that civilization has imposed on human beings. And in the midst of this conflict is a debate centered on Dignitas Hospital. It is important to find a way to deal with this “absurdity” and still pursue human dignity. Our society will have to calmly and thoughtfully find a desirable consensus.