Home 
Contact 
Profile 
Videos 
Presentation to the Muslim Health
Professionals Ramadhan Seminar Mombasa August 3, 2013 by Professor Omar Hasan
Kasule, Sr
DEFINITION
Euthanasia also called mercy
killing is defined as causing death to spare a patient from pain and suffering.
Euthanasia reverses the customary role of the physician as a preserver into a
destroyer of life. Active euthanasia, an act of commission that causes death,
is taking some action that leads to death like a fatal injection. Passive
euthanasia, an act of omission, is letting a person die by taking no action to
maintain life. The Law views all forms of euthanasia, active and passive, as
murder. Those who give advice and those who assist in any way with suicide are
guilty of homicide. A physician is legally liable for any euthanasia actions
performed even if instructed by the patient.
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE
Euthanasia violates the Purpose
of the Law to guarantee and protect the right to life. It also makes the
physician assume God’s prerogative of causing death. Widespread practice of
euthanasia can cheapen human life and make murder and even genocide more
acceptable.
INTENTION
According to the principle of
intention, there is no distinction between active and passive euthanasia
because the end-result is the same. In many cases the distinction between
legitimate life support withdrawal and criminal euthanasia is the underlying
intention because the actions taken may be the same.
INJURY
The principle of injury makes
euthanasia illegal because it tries to resolve the problems of pain and
suffering of terminal illness by causing a bigger injury which is killing.
Continuation of pain in terminal illness is a lesser evil than euthanasia.
Prohibition of euthanasia closes the door to corrupt relatives killing patients
for the sake of inheritance by claiming euthanasia.
AUTONOMY
The patient cannot legally agree
to termination of life because life belongs to the Creator and humans are mere
temporary custodians. The determination of lifespan is not in human hands.
Patients in terminal illness often lose competence and cannot make valid
informed decisions on their treatment or the termination of life. A living will
made before the present illness is a non-binding recommendation and can be
reversed.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
There is no legal basis for
euthanasia. Physicians have no right to interfere with the lifespan that was fixed
by the Creator. Disease will take its natural course until death. Physicians
for each individual patient do not know this course. It is therefore necessary
that they concentrate on the quality of the remaining life and not reversal of
death. Life support measures should be taken with the intention of quality in
mind. Instead of discussing euthanasia, we should undertake research to find
out how to make the remaining life of as high a quality as is possible. The
most that can be done is not to undertake any heroic measures for a terminally
ill patient. However ordinary medical care and nutrition cannot be stopped.
This can best be achieved by the hospital having a clear and public policy on
life support with clear admission criteria and application to all patients
without regard for age, gender, SES, race, or diagnosis.