Euthanasia is a medical practice that aims to cause the death of the terminally ill person with the purpose of alleviating their suffering and allowing them to rest in peace.
Thus, it consists of a process that, by action, through medications, substances or surgical interventions, or omission, removing the support that keeps him alive or failing to intervene to shorten his life, ends up resulting in the intentional death of the patient. Now, there are some variables that can give rise to different types of euthanasia, such as the action carried out by the doctor, the will of the patient or the purpose of the practice.
Since it is a topic as sensitive as death, it generates controversy, presenting arguments against and in favor of euthanasia. In fact, currently, it can only be done legally in 7 countries.
In this article we will learn what types of euthanasia exist and what this process consists of which countries have this practice legalized, what types of euthanasia exist and what arguments are given against and in favor of this medical process.
Etymologically, euthanasia means “good death.” In most cases, we therefore understand euthanasia as the medical process of ending the life of a person suffering from a terminal illness, thus freeing him from the suffering that it entails In this way, the action carried out is voluntary and intentionally directed to cause the death of the individual.
It is important differentiate euthanasia from other practices such as assisted suicide which consists of providing help to a patient with the purpose of ending his or her life, but in this case the person who executes the action is the patient himself.
Currently, euthanasia is legally practiced in 7 countries: Holland (the first country to legalize it, in 2002), Belgium (2002), Luxembourg (2009), Colombia (2014), Canada (2006), and Spain and New Zealand. (2021).
Types of euthanasia
As we have already seen, euthanasia shows a specific definition, with particular characteristics that must be met in order to consider the action as such. Even so, There are small variations that give rise to different types of euthanasia The variables that allow us to distinguish between different euthanasia practices are the role played by the doctor, the will shown by the patient or what the purpose of the action is.
We talk about direct euthanasia when the procedure performed by the doctor is intended to cause the death of the terminally ill patient This type of euthanasia is in turn divided into active and passive, depending on the professional’s performance.
1.1. Active direct euthanasia
Active or positive direct euthanasia is called this way given the active involvement that the doctor has in the death of the patient The professional performs an action, whether it is the administration of a medication or the practice of an intervention that causes the intentional death of the subject. As we already saw, the purpose is to reduce suffering and provide a painless death and thus be able to rest.
1.2. Passive direct euthanasia
Passive or negative direct euthanasia also shows the purpose of causing the death of the patient, but In this case, the person dies due to omission of action In other words, the patient does not die because of the intentional action carried out by the professional, but rather because of stopping a practice or removing the support that keeps the patient alive.
Although in this case an action as such is not carried out, the intention and responsibility remains with the doctor, since it is the omission of his conduct that causes the death of the patient.
2. Indirect euthanasia
Indirect euthanasia The main objective is not to cause the death of the terminally ill patient, but rather to reduce their pain These practices can be observed applied in palliative treatments, where the disease is incurable and, in order to reduce the patient’s suffering and pain, medications with an analgesic function are administered, which as an adverse effect shortens the subject’s life, causing May he die sooner than expected.
The process to achieve the final goal, death, will be slower than that observed in direct euthanasia, but the result in both will be the relief of suffering and pain.
3. Voluntary euthanasia
In voluntary euthanasia, as its name indicates, the terminally ill patient expresses his will to die Thus, the patient is the one who requests euthanasia at the current moment, or has done so previously (for example, he left in writing that he wanted euthanasia to be performed if when the time came he was not able to convey such a wish, when he found himself their cognitive abilities affected).
In reference to involuntary euthanasia, the individual who communicates to the professional the desire to practice euthanasia is not the patient himself, but a third person, who is normally a relative of the patient.
When the time comes to make the decision, Given the circumstances in which the patient finds himself, such as a decrease in consciousness or a loss of cognitive faculties, he cannot communicate his will nor did he leave it written in advance, in this case a relative of his being the one who makes the decision, fulfilling the wish previously expressed by the patient and thus allowing him to stop suffering.
5. Eugenic euthanasia
Eugenic euthanasia proposes the death of individuals with the objective of “improving the race”, that is, for ideological purposes In this case, the practice is not intended to end the patient’s suffering, but rather death. It is executed with the purpose of “perfecting” the human species from a discriminatory logic It can also be performed before the individual is born, in this case it is considered abortion.
Examples of this type of euthanasia would consist of ending the lives of weak subjects, with some type of affectation or simply ending subjects that show specific characteristics that do not correspond to the “strong race” as happened to the Jews during the nazi holocaust
6. Merciful euthanasia
In pious euthanasia, unlike eugenics, The ultimate goal is to ensure that the terminally ill person can rest in peace Thus, it is the one that is linked to the definition given to euthanasia, harboring the possibility of being done in different ways, with or without the patient’s consent, as we have already seen.
You may be interested: “Empathy, much more than putting yourself in someone else’s shoes”
Reasons for and against euthanasia
As we already mentioned in the introduction, euthanasia continues to be a practice that generates controversy and different opinions. Thus, both the group that positions itself in favor and the one that positions itself against will give valid arguments to defend their point of view or beliefs.
Subjects who position themselves against euthanasia argue that the action, even if the intention is to end the patient’s suffering, consists of killing or letting a person die and as such, it is an immoral procedure that goes against what is humanly correct Even though we know that the situation is difficult and complicated, hope always arises in us and a slight thought of finally making everything end well. For this reason, it is difficult to accept that euthanasia is the best option, since the idea of a possible cure will always arise in us.
On the other hand, we also observe the ethical and moral influence, when the doctor, who, as we have seen, must be the one who executes or omits the action that causes the death of the patient, feels the remorse of having let a patient die and not having done anything to save him You are acting against the main function you have as a doctor, which is to cure, and therefore, it also entails a responsibility that may be difficult to accept.
On the other hand, defenders of euthanasia will argue that It is the patient’s decision to decide what they want to do with their life Continuing to endure suffering and pain when the illness is terminal and there is no possibility of improvement is worse for the patient and their family than allowing them to finally rest in peace. In the end we must look at the well-being of the patient and assess what is best for him. Letting him continue to suffer when we know he will not recover may be more immoral than helping him achieve his desire to rest.
We see then how, depending on the factors or point of view chosen, the arguments can vary and have the same meaning, even if they contradict each other. For this reason, each country decides whether to accept and legalize the practice of euthanasia, each also providing its own modes of action or characteristics that must be met, for example the number of doctors that must authorize, who requests euthanasia, the age of the terminal patient, the times when it is necessary to express the intention of wanting euthanasia to be carried out.
