List of the Disadvantages of Euthanasia

1. The prediction of a terminal diagnosis is rarely accurate.

During a 2005 study of terminal illness diagnoses by the Mayo Clinic, they found that only 1 in 5 patients
received an accurate number. 17% of people who find themselves in this situation live for longer,
sometimes much longer, than what the doctor initially recommends. That is why euthanasia encounters
such resistance, even when there are legal definitions in place which allow for its use.

If about 1 in 5 people beat their diagnosis, then what else could be possible? It might be unrealistic to
expect a medical miracle in every situation, but we should take an open and honest approach to these
statistics.

2. There can be issues with consent when looking at euthanasia.

The legalization of euthanasia works when a physician is willing to provide this option for their patient.
There are times when a doctor is unwilling to provide a lethal prescription for their own ethical reasons,
going back to the concept to “do no harm.” There are some in the medical field that believe the quality
of death should be just as much a priority as the quality of life, but the idea of trying to recommend this
option is something that critics find to b e a possibility in the future.

No one should ever go through a situation where they feel like their doctor is trying to talk them into the
euthanasia process. Doctors need the option to get out of this program just as much as a patient
deserves a second option.

3. Euthanasia medication doesn’t always deliver on its promised result.

The State of Oregon tracked the results of patients who took lethal prescriptions as part of the Death
with Dignity Act for two decades, starting in 1998. This data found that seven people regained
consciousness after taking the medication, and one person was even alive after the study period still
fighting their disease. Another 1,179 people out of 1,857 qualifying patients had a successful result from
their encounter with the euthanasia program.

We must remember that the legalization of euthanasia is not a guaranteed outcome. When someone
makes this decision and it doesn’t work as intended, it places them and their doctor into an almost
impossible situation. Do you continue to treat the disease? Or do you attempt to help that person end
their life once again.
4. Euthanasia could allow people to choose death for reasons that go beyond an illness.

When surveying individuals who qualify for a euthanasia program, over 90% said that it was their “loss of
autonomy” that was driving their decision – not the actual diagnosis of a terminal illness. The survey
asked patients to choose any reason that applied, and 90% of people also chose a restriction in their
usual activities as a primary factor in their choice.

Only 1 in 4 people who decide to pursue the idea of euthanasia say that pain is an influencing factor in
their decision. If patients are using the Death with Dignity Act to have doctors help to end their life
because they don’t like their “new normal,” then doesn’t that go against the purpose of this legislation in
the first place?

5. Second opinions are not always necessary for euthanasia.

The field of medicine is not an exact science, even if we know that there are certain outcomes that are
likely in specific circumstances. If you have a bacterial infection, for example, then taking antibiotics
should help to clear things up for you. Is that outcome guaranteed? No.

Medical interventions are based on the idea that the benefits which are possible outweigh the potential
risks that you face. That is why a second opinion is often recommended when there is a serious
diagnosis. Even if there is a consensus in a patient’s condition, there is an unpredictability to the way a
person might respond to treatment. “You get surprises because diseases have their own personality, and
every once in a while, a disease that’s usually bad behaves in a more indolent fashion,” Dr. David
Steinberg, an oncologist at the Lahey Clinic Medical Center, told NBC News.

6. Euthanasia would require a change to the legal and medical statutes in most countries.

Although the United States, the Netherlands, and other countries which offer euthanasia at some level
would require little in the way of legislation to permit this practice, it would require a complete overhaul
of the criminal justice system in others. Even in the U.S., the judicial system has found that an individual
does not have a Constitutional right to ask for a prescription that could end their life.

What we do know from the countries which allow euthanasia is that more people are requesting this
service without having a terminal illness. Almost 5% of the individuals who die in the Netherlands each
year do so because of euthanasia, with over 30% of the requests coming from individuals above the age
of 80 without a significant health diagnosis.

7. Some doctors may purposely give out false information.

We already know that 1 in 5 people can survive a terminal diagnosis based on length. The University of
Chicago also found that doctors sometimes refuse to even offer an estimate if a patient asks them how
long they have to live. 2 out of 5 physicians said that they would give an optimistic time that was up to
three times longer than what they thought was possible. If we cannot be honest about patient
information even with the presence of death with dignity laws, then isn’t it possible that some people
could qualify for a program when the reality of their health was a very different story?

8. Most patients do not go through with the process of euthanasia.

Only a small group of people decide that ending their life is the right decision to make. About 15% of
people who are given a terminal diagnosis even bring up the idea of taking their life through a lethal
prescription in the first place. The patients who then follow through with their doctor about this choice
is about 2%. When you get to the individuals who actually take the pills so that they can use their local
euthanasia laws, that figure drops to less than 1%.

Because there are so few people who take advantage of this option, it could be more beneficial to direct
the resources dedicated to euthanasia into other forms of medical research. Although there isn’t a
realistic cure for old age, we might come up with a way to stop cancer reliably, manage Alzheimer’s
disease with consistency, and find solutions for genetic conditions that can reduce the quality of life for a
person.

9. Euthanasia avoids the benefits of palliative care.

Instead of trying to improve the life of a patient who has a terminal diagnosis, euthanasia seeks to take
what remains of a person’s life away from them. People who specialize in palliative care can benefit from
the new social, spiritual, and physical problems they face with their health. It is a benefit that people
with a non-fatal diagnosis can use to their advantage as well. Giving up on the hope of life because of a
challenging circumstance isn’t the right message for doctors to send to their patients. Suicide is an action
that someone can take on their own in most instances if they are of sound mind and body, which means
a doctor doesn’t need to be involved in many of these situations.
10. It can result in accidental life termination.

In 2018, Dutch doctor Bert Keizer was asked to come to the home of a man dying from lung cancer.
When he arrived, there were over 30 people gathered around the man’s bed, all drinking, crying and
grieving – but it was boisterous. Then the patient told everyone to calm down, the children were taken
from the room, and Keizer gave the man his shot that would end his life.

It’s not a slippery slope argument. The first prosecution for medical malpractice while administering
euthanasia occurred in 2018. When the Dutch passed their laws in 2002, there wasn’t a stipulation in
place for the patient to be competent at the time of medication administration. There are even instances
where parents call in doctors to euthanize their mentally ill children.