Over the last decade, the debate regarding euthanasia has been dramatic and thought provoking. Virtually every member of the population holds some sort of personal view on these issues. Most stances are based on personal experience, moral reasoning, and religious or cultural affiliations. It is advantageous, however, to occasionally look at these controversies from objective and unique viewpoints. Psychological thought, in both the forensics (legal) and traditional realms, provides a number of interesting perspectives on euthanasia. Thiroux (1998) divides euthanasia into three subtypes, of which I will refer to as: (1) passive euthanasia, (2) active euthanasia, and (3) mercy killing. Passive euthanasia involves situations in which someone has been allowed to die. In these particular cases, life sustaining medical treatments are withheld from an individual whom is chronically ill or injured. As a result they will typically die a natural death. Active euthanasia involves direct action that hastens the death of an individual whom would have eventually died of natural means. Both active and passive euthanasia tend to involve direct requests by the patient, whom either refuses the life sustaining treatment or consents to a death by artificial means. Mercy killing, like active euthanasia, involves direct action to terminate an individuals life. Unlike active euthanasia, the patient does not consent to the act. However, the act is done with the assumption that the patient would not want to live in their current state, and that if they could speak they would consent to the act.
Psychological suffering has been a argument used on both sides of the euthanasia debate. Supporters of legal euthanasia have stated that lengthy and harsh terminal illnesses cause unnecessary psychological anguish to both the victims of the illness and their families. It is difficult to believe that a person should be forced to live their final days in extreme physical and mental discomfort. The psychological trauma can go far beyond the individual directly effected by the illness, providing a number of stressors towards the family members of the victims. Stressors such as financial ruin that can continue long after the victim has died.
Critics of euthanasia also have brought forward the issue of psychological suffering. Medical professionals whom have to perform acts of euthanasia are faced with the possibility of immense guilt and depression as a result of their actions (Thiroux, 1998). Throughout their academic and professional careers these medical doctors and nurses have been trained to save lives. Critics question whether it is fair to place on to them the burden of taking a life. I believe that a cost-benefit analysis is applicable to these views towards psychological suffering and euthanasia. While the suffering of the Medical staff must be considered, it likely pales in comparison to the suffering of the victims and those who hold extensive personal relationships with them. Watching a loved one slowly deteriorate can be a painful experience, one some individuals never quite recover from. Medical professionals often, though not always, have a certain detachment from their clients. This detachment would likely limit the psychological ramifications of dealing with the terminally ill. While the suffering of medical staff must be considered within the euthanasia debate, I do not believe that it warrants the elimination of acts towards its legalization. On the contrary, I believe the legalization of euthanasia could actually eliminate a great deal of the mental suffering that medical staff are faced with. One must realize, that contrary to the legal restrictions, euthanasia occurs quite often in North America. This is done via the unreported withholding of treatment, as well as the administration of deadly pharmaceuticals. Since euthanasia is already occurring these medical professionals are already facing anguish over their acts. If these acts are going unreported, since reporting them could lead to legal action, the medical staff involved will not be provided with the appropriate counseling. If euthanasia is legalized, hospital staff involved in such acts can routinely receive grievance counseling and crisis debriefing. This counseling, which would be provided for family members as well, is an essential resource that could alleviate a great deal of the psychological suffering surrounding euthanasia.
The copyright of the article Psychological Thoughts on the Biomedical-Legal Euthanasia Debate in Forensic Psychology is owned by . Permission to republish Psychological Thoughts on the Biomedical-Legal Euthanasia Debate in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
