Somerville (2002) defines euthanasia as the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. If the action is not intentional, then the death cannot be called euthanasia. While there has been a good deal of discussion as to whether euthanasia is a moral or ethical act (Loewy, 2002), there has been less discussion of the effects of legalizing euthanasia on society (Hughes, 2002). The purpose of this paper is to defend the thesis that the legalization of euthanasia will have negative consequences to society.
Allowing people the option of assisted suicide, a term defined by Sommerville (2000) as physicians providing individuals with information, guidance, and means to take their own lives with the intention that this will be used for said purpose, and/or euthanasia is likely to have negative social consequences. In this regard, the options of assisted-suicide or euthanasia could operate to distract attention from the care that patients otherwise might be offered, most especially if the patientsÆ symptoms persisted beyond initial attempts to alleviate them thereby resulting in a society with less high quality medical care.
Further, with euthanasia, it is reasonable to believe that aggressive treatment and supportive services, which often come at such high costs, might seem less compelling. Also, hospital administrators, once these practice are officially sanctioned, could well use them as an excuse to spend less money and effort on services for terminally ill patients such as AIDS patients (Dyck, 1992).
Another argument against euthanasia with respect to its affects on society is that offered by Angelo (2001) who reports that patients who have just been diagnosed with a terminal illness often wish to die not because of a reasoned and thorough analysis of their situation, but rather due to depression. Ang
...