Background Information
Euthanasia has become an increasingly controversial subject in New Zealand and around the world. According to a 2006 survey, about 70 percent of New Zealanders supported the idea of being able to choose euthanasia under certain circumstances. Since then, the issue has been exhaustively debated, with various experts putting forward different perspectives.
What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia, sometimes known as mercy killing, is a medical procedure in which a patient is helped to end their life in order to relieve their suffering. Euthanasia comes in two forms: voluntary, which is when a patient makes an informed decision to end their own life; and involuntary, which is when a doctor or other medical professional takes the decision away from the patient.
Euthanasia and New Zealand Law
In New Zealand, euthanasia is illegal under the Crimes Act 1961. Under this act, a person can be found guilty of manslaughter if found guilty of aiding or abetting a suicide. This includes recommending, counselling or assisting in any way, either directly or indirectly, in any act with the intention of causing death.
Ethical Considerations
Given the legal status of euthanasia in the country, it is not surprising that the issue raises a range of ethical considerations. Proponents of euthanasia argue that it is a medical procedure that can provide much-needed relief from suffering, while opponents point out that it goes against the ethical principle of respect for life and could lead to more cases of medically assisted suicide.
Arguments for Euthanasia
Euthanasia supporters argue that it is a compassionate and dignified way of allowing an individual to choose an end to their suffering. They also argue that it is a basic human right for individuals to be able to make decisions about their own bodies, and that this overrides any religious or moral qualms people may have about the issue.
Arguments Against Euthanasia
Opponents of euthanasia often cite the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical professionals, which states that “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan”. They also argue that legalising euthanasia could lead to a slippery slope, where individuals are given the choice to end their life without due consideration of the wider implications of their decision.
Public Attitude
Recent surveys in New Zealand have shown that public opinion on euthanasia remains fairly divided. A 2019 survey found that 59 percent of Kiwis supported legalising euthanasia, while 39 percent were opposed. This highlights the complexity of the debate and how it remains a fiercely contested issue in New Zealand.
Religious Perspectives
Euthanasia has also caused controversy in the religious sphere, with different faiths holding vastly varying views on the matter. The Catholic Church, for example, has long argued against the legality of euthanasia, citing it as a violation of God’s will. Other denominations, such as the Anglican Church of New Zealand, have adopted a more tolerant stance, supporting the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their end-of-life care.
Impact on Medical Profession
There are also significant considerations for the medical profession. While some doctors may be comfortable with the concept of euthanasia, others may feel uncomfortable with the idea of taking part in the termination of a human life. This can create a tension between the doctor’s individual beliefs and the expectations of a professional standard of care.
Financial Impact
The financial implications of legalising euthanasia are also significant. This is primarily due to the cost of providing appropriate resources for those who manage the process. This can include the cost of medications, medical services, counselling, and other resources needed to ensure the process is carried out in a safe and respectful manner.
Risk of Abuse
Another issue is the risk of abuse and exploitation. In countries where euthanasia is legalised, such as The Netherlands and Belgium, there have been reports of vulnerable individuals being euthanised without consent. This raises questions about the potential for such practices to be replicated in New Zealand, further complicating the debate.
Agenda Impact
Finally, there is the question of what legalising euthanasia would mean for the wider political agenda. The issue has been largely absent from New Zealand’s current political landscape, with no signs of it being raised in parliament. This means that, while there are strong views on either side of the debate, there is currently no legislation in New Zealand that determines the legality of euthanasia.
Opportunity Costs
A discussion of why euthanasia is an ethical issue in New Zealand cannot omit the opportunity costs of adopting such a policy. If euthanasia were legalised, it would inevitably draw resources away from other important areas of healthcare such as palliative care, mental health, and end-of-life care. This need for prioritisation of resources could have far-reaching implications on the quality of care that NZers receive, and this is something that must not be overlooked in this debate.
Impact on Mental Health
The impact legalising euthanasia would have on the country’s mental health must also be taken into account. Studies have suggested that both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can have severe emotional repercussions for those involved, as well as the wider community. This makes it doubly important that any policy on the issue is subject to rigorous ethical and legal oversight.
Balancing Benefits and Risks
Ultimately, it is up to New Zealanders to decide how far the country should go in allowing euthanasia. While it is important to take into account the various benefits and risks associated with such a policy, it is also essential to consider the moral and ethical implications of legalising a procedure that could potentially lead to a loss of life.
Safety Mechanisms
Safety mechanisms are also essential for any policy on euthanasia. This includes ensuring the right safeguards are in place to prevent people from making decisions that are not in their own best interest. This could include introducing stricter guidelines around the use of advance directives to ensure that those seeking to end their life are properly informed of their choices and the implications of such a decision.
Professional Resources
Another important aspect of ensuring the safety of any euthanasia policy is to ensure that the right professional resources are in place. This includes psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who can provide support and advice to those considering euthanasia, as well as medical practitioners and nurses with the appropriate experience and expertise to carry out the procedure.
Media Responsibilities
The media also has a responsibility to report on euthanasia issues in a responsible manner. This includes being mindful of the potential for sensationalism, sensationalised and unreliable reporting, and disinformation. They should also ensure that they keep a neutral perspective in their coverage and avoid taking sides in the debate.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding euthanasia in New Zealand is complex and emotive. While there are strong views on both sides, New Zealanders must be mindful of the moral, ethical and legal implications of legalising such a procedure. Ultimately, the way forward in this debate must be carefully considered and take into account the various benefits, risks and responsibilities associated with euthanasia.
