Euthanasia and Mental Health: A Slippery Slope

 

Euthanasia is a rather controversial medical procedure, involving the painless killing of a patient with an incurable illness. To some societies, this violates the moral prerogative of a human being’s right to life, while in others it is viewed as a means to end a person’s suffering and grant them release from their pain, leading to the use of the term “mercy killing” in certain scenarios involving such a procedure. While there are various arguments for and against euthanasia as a whole, this article will seek to cast light on issues surrounding the use of euthanasia in cases involving mentally ill patients, since certain unique factors relating to them are often overlooked. 

In nations where euthanasia is already legalized for those suffering from physical conditions, it may seem obvious that the government would wish to extend this right to all patients for whom an escape from disease and misery is impossible. However, there are certain flaws with this ideal. After all, in virtually every nation where the procedure is allowed by law (barring a few rare exceptions), a fundamental part of the process is to obtain the consent of the patient themselves. There are many difficulties involved in explaining the gravity of the decision to a mentally ill patient, which is also coupled with the issue of the medical merit of a letter of consent signed by someone who suffers from severe mental impairments, making this requirement particularly challenging to fulfill. The underlying risk that a mentally and emotionally vulnerable patient may be persuaded or even pressured into agreeing to end their life is one that must certainly be taken into consideration before any alterations to the legal framework surrounding this issue are made. Relatives who wish to eliminate the financial deadweight of caring for a terminally ill patient may be motivated to take advantage of this vulnerability, while the possibility of the situation being manipulated for insurance claims and other such factors make the risks of allowing euthanasia to be granted to mentally ill patients on the same basis as others difficult to overstate.

However, despite the clear lack of certainty as to whether the benefits of a decision to legalize such cases of euthanasia will outweigh the drawbacks, one must also consider the basic idealistic aims of euthanasia, which state that any person, at any time and place, should be allowed to perform assisted suicide if their situation is in fact judged to be dire enough to justify such a drastic step. The legalization of this procedure, and the accordance of the right to painless death to a greater range of patients, is likely to remain a priority for progressive activist groups. Furthermore, while the idea of allowing another person to consent on behalf of the patient is certainly morally objectionable, in certain cases it may prove a necessity. For example, in case of a patient being in a comatose state, euthanasia is allowed to be carried out with the consent of a relative or other trusted person. 

Considering the multiple potential implications, both positive and negative, of the legalization of procedures to provide euthanasia to those suffering from mental health disorders, it is likely that the issue will require several more years of research and debate by both scientists and lawmakers before much change to the legal framework is realized. While this may prolong the misery of some, it must be hoped that this delay could also prevent needless loss of life.