“What matters is living well and going well.”
This is something my grandmother would often say when she was bedridden. At the time, I dismissively thought of it as a vague word of comfort, but as I grew older and began to deeply contemplate the finite nature of life, I came to realize the heavy meaning contained within those words. While ‘living well’ is a goal and a topic for all of us, ‘going well’ is also a task no less important.
Recently, due to rapid population aging and the dazzling advancement of medical technology, our society has been experiencing ‘life extension’ that was unimaginable in the past. Paradoxically, however, this change is forcing us to deeply contemplate not only ‘quality of life’ but also ‘quality of death.’ While in the past, it was common to accept death as an inescapable fate and meet it naturally, in modern society, as methods to extend life have diversified with the advancement of medical technology, patients and families have the opportunity to choose the manner of death. Amidst these changes, discussions on the manner of death, such as death with dignity, euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide, have broken away from being a taboo subject of the past and have emerged as an important topic that all members of society must contemplate together.
Euthanasia refers to the act of a patient with an incurable disease artificially shortening their life with the help of medical personnel according to their own will. This is largely divided into ‘active euthanasia,’ which shortens life by administering drugs at the patient’s request; ‘passive euthanasia (death with dignity),’ which allows a natural death by halting treatment at the patient’s request; and ‘physician-assisted suicide,’ in which medical personnel provide drugs or other means so that the patient can choose death themselves. Each method has differences in the patient’s condition, the doctor’s role, and the legal scope, and the social consensus on them also appears differently. In particular, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are the forms that face the most severe ethical and religious backlash in that they artificially end a human life.
The position supporting euthanasia is based on the logic that a patient’s right to self-determination and a dignified death must be guaranteed. It is argued that continuing life amidst unbearable pain is an act that damages human dignity, and that patients themselves should have the right to end their lives autonomously. In particular, it is pointed out that the physical pain suffered by terminal cancer patients or patients with rare incurable diseases is beyond imagination, and this goes beyond mere pain to a level that obliterates the patient’s personality and humanity. In addition, easing the economic and mental suffering of patients and families caused by meaningless life-sustaining treatment and promoting the efficient utilization of medical resources are also presented as grounds for the supporting opinion.
On the other hand, the position opposing euthanasia expresses concern about the sanctity of life and the possibility of abuse. It is argued that human life is noble in itself, and the act of artificially shortening another person’s life for any reason cannot be permitted. Especially in religious circles, life is regarded as God’s domain, and a strong position is maintained that humans arbitrarily ending it is sacrilege and moral depravity. In addition, there are concerns that if euthanasia is legalized, people may be forced to accept unwanted death due to economic difficulties or the burden on their families, or may face an unfair death due to a doctor’s misjudgment. According to the so-called ‘slippery slope theory,’ concerns are also raised that if we begin to allow euthanasia, its scope may gradually expand, eventually leading to ‘involuntary euthanasia’ of socially vulnerable groups.
The discussion on euthanasia goes beyond a simple pro-con issue and requires deep reflection on the values our society should pursue and human life and death. Should we respect a patient’s right to self-determination above all else, or should we disallow euthanasia under any circumstances to preserve the sanctity of life? There is no single correct answer to this problem. However, beyond the pros and cons debate over euthanasia, we must establish a social support system so that patients do not face death alone in pain and continue an in-depth discussion on the manner of death that preserves human dignity. For example, efforts to expand palliative care and hospice systems to ease patients’ pain and support them in maintaining human dignity until the last moment of life can be an alternative to euthanasia.
Euthanasia is an issue concerning death that we will all face one day. Rather than fearing and avoiding death, we must accept death as a part of life and together contemplate ways to meet a dignified death. That will be the way for us to cherish life even more and not lose human dignity until the last moment. At the final moment of life, what choice will we make? And what choice should our society support? The process of finding the answer to this heavy question will be the first step for us to live a truly valuable life.
In conclusion, the issue of euthanasia is a heavy topic that tests our values regarding life and death. In a situation where pro and con opinions are evenly balanced, we cannot help but constantly agonize between human self-determination and the sanctity of life. However, one clear thing is that we must not lose human dignity until the end. Whether euthanasia is permitted or opposed, the standard must always be on easing the patient’s pain and increasing the value of life. In addition, the discussion on euthanasia should not remain merely on a legal and institutional level but should lead to a cultural reflection on how to face the end of life. Along with a shift in perception that death is not the end of life but a part of life, efforts are needed to create a social environment where a dignified death can be met. That will be the path for us to find true meaning of happiness within the finite nature of life.