Euthanasia, a kind way to end suffering

By Dr E V Rapiti

I fully support the views of Professor Sean Davison on euthanasia and his intention to set up an organisation to assist the terminally ill to die in dignity. I am sure that there are many that would support him but they remain silent fearing the reprisals by the small group of moralists, who, very simplistically, view it as murder based on their religious upbringing. This defence by the few moralists is done out of a fear that they might be falling out of favour with their maker but with very little regard for the suffering of the individual.

Euthanasia should not be viewed in the same light as murder or suicide. Murder is criminal, while suicide of a healthy human being is a result of absolute desperation or depression. Desperation and depression can be treated or addressed with appropriate measures and medications and valuable lives can be saved.

People with terminal illnesses associated with crippling pain for which there is no cure, deserve society’s empathy and understanding. It is utterly cruel to allow an individual to suffer an inordinate amount of pain purely on the principle of preserving life. Individuals should have the right to free choice when it comes to ending their life if they are struck by a terminal debilitating illness. In the case of abortion, which is legalised, the foetus has no say in the decision, whereas in the case of euthanasia, individuals make a decision to end their own life as it is the only means to end their suffering, for which there is neither relief nor cure.

If we are going to be so adamant about making euthanasia illegal then we need to ask ourselves, why is life support turned off or living wills allowed. The only people to benefit from the archaic law of making euthanasia illegal, are the private hospitals. Their ICUs are full of terminally ill at huge cost to the individual and their medical aids. When the medical aid funds are exhausted, the terminally ill are sent off to the state hospitals, hospice or to their homes. There are far better ways of utilising valuable funds wasted on the terminally ill. That is not to imply that the terminally have to be dumped. On the contrary they can be well-cared for in a hospice or home environment, where they can die with dignity amid the close and caring company of family and friends.

A recent study has revealed that families, who care for their terminally ill at home are five times less at risk of developing severe PTSD and anxiety than families whose loved ones die in a hospital setting.

Finally I fail to see the fuss about the liberal use of morphine for the terminally ill because the dose to stop pain and the toxic or lethal dose is very narrow in the final stages of cancer pain. Many physicians are left with the difficult choice of prescribing a high dose to relieve the patient’s pain at the risk of causing an early death. A choice many a doctor is faced with in his or her lifetime and yes we are guilty of crossing the safe-dose threshold, not because we don’t care but out of compassion for our patient’s pain and suffering. It is part of our oath to relieve a patient of his or her suffering so it would seem the law and our oath are at crossroads with each other.

I wish Professor Davison all the success in his endeavour to start a new society for the terminally ill and to have euthanasia legalised all over the world and I hope that common sense would prevail when he is being tried for his act of human kindness.

Dr E V Rapiti is a medical practitioner