The Privilege of Experiencing Life

From prestigious institutes to the very language used by medical professionals, the concept of medicine is associated with the term “treatment”, appearing in both Oxford⁽¹⁾ and Cambridge⁽²⁾ dictionaries, referring to carrying out action to prolong life or cure illness. Therefore, it is conveyed that all medicine must preserve and promote living, with medicine defined as “treatment for illness or injury”; anything otherwise would misalign with medical duty to cure and save.

However, this idea extends beyond definitions through the Hippocratic Oath⁽³⁾, a required promise by all doctors to “abstain from harming or wronging”, further emphasising medical responsibilities to save life, connoting its high value. Hence, it should be protected. Supported by the US government, the National Institutes of Health⁽⁴⁾ merits the sanctity of life, referring to its preciousness whether through sacred religious beliefs regarding Christianity and God’s creation process⁽⁵⁾, or proven statistics about the minuscule chance of being born⁽⁶⁾ (approximately less than 1 in 300 million). This statistic is merely based on the average male sperm count, whereas reality holds numerous factors, including the following: the probability of one’s parents meeting, the chance that they conceive a child, the fertility rates of both parents. This only touches the surface of all the events which lead to our births. Accordingly, the importance of protecting life is considered highly admissible due to its incomprehensible rarity.

Painkillers and Anaesthesia

But this reasoning raises the query of why analgesics (painkillers)⁽⁷⁾ constitute a large branch of modern treatment. Views, as such, raise the idea that perhaps there is a broader purpose to medicine as a whole, rather than just saving lives; painkillers are universally acknowledged as a form of medicine because they improve quality of life through pain relief⁽⁸⁾, which the US government reinforces alongside Britain’s NHS⁽⁹⁾ via their designated websites.

Yet although they are considered as a form of healthcare, they do not kill pathogens⁽¹⁰⁾ but are vital in society to manage injury and sickness. Anaesthesia is given the title of “medicine” in a similar manner, with its main objective being to reduce sensation⁽¹¹⁾ in parts of the body, whether through an induced coma or neuromuscular blockade, in which muscles are temporarily shut down.

The main purpose of this is to relieve the effects of pain, but arguably with superior importance to painkillers due to the sorts of situations it is required in. Providing this form of medicine to patients is imperative in cases where operative surgery is necessary; it minimises patient distress by preventing agony or discomfort during surgical procedures. Anaesthesia accomplishes this by blocking pathways⁽¹²⁾ between the body’s nerves and the brain, halting electrical impulses sent by pain receptors from reaching the brain. As a result, a numbing effect is induced, stopping patients under its effects from being able to perceive pain. Not only does this ensure the comfort of a patient, but it also supports doctors by allowing them to carry out complex procedures without the concern of patient movement, which could otherwise occur if a patient is conscious or in pain.

Whilst anaesthesia does not combat infections or diseases, it is an essential branch of medicine due to the pain relief anaesthetic drugs provide and the assistance this offers to doctors. This evidence suggests that the role of medicine is broader than preserving life: it may include providing comfort and relief from suffering.

Euthanasia and Medical Ethics

This concept is explored in the NHS definition of euthanasia⁽¹³⁾ which states: “euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering.” As of 2024, this process is legal in approximately 10 countries only, including Spain, Canada, and Belgium; the countries in which euthanasia is permitted are coloured blue in Figure 1^(*).

Whilst euthanasia is legal in these areas, the majority of the world, including the UK and USA, regards this process as illegal under their law. Assisted suicide in the UK itself is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment under the terms of the Suicide Act (1961)⁽¹⁴⁾.

But this raises a question: why is euthanasia illegal in the majority of the world when its purpose is to relieve suffering? The case study of Aurelia Brouwers⁽¹⁵⁾ (publicly released in August 2018) explores this: the 29-year-old woman chose to be voluntarily euthanised due to her psychological illness. Whilst she was not terminally ill, her mental state destroyed her quality of life, so she was laid to die in January 2018 by a doctor in the Netherlands^(A). Some may argue that the doctor who assisted Brouwers with her suicide went against the “Hippocratic Oath” because he aided the death of a person. But Brouwers herself stated that death would provide her more solace than living. It is true that the doctor assisted her suicide, but his succour provided Brouwers with painless relief from suffering, alongside respecting her autonomy⁽¹⁶⁾ (the human right to make decisions for oneself), both of which are crucial considerations in medical ethics⁽¹⁷⁾.

Following this reasoning, we can see that euthanasia (when consensual) may not fully contradict the “Hippocratic Oath”; it can provide peaceful relief from indignity or severe pain in cases where other options to preserve life may only prolong suffering. This aligns with one of the core purposes of medicine as a whole: to alleviate pain, discomfort, or distress. Therefore, it can be suggested that (when desired and voluntary), euthanasia could qualify as medicine, supporting the argument that medicine is not defined by the quality of preserving life.

Conclusion & Personal Judgement

In conclusion, life possesses an undeniably high value. This can be supported by both religion and science through institutional proofs and scientific estimations of the extraordinary odds of being able to experience life, coupled with divine religious concepts such as the sanctity of life. As a result, it can be argued that all methods of “helping” someone must involve preserving their life. Contrastingly, if we regard the notion of there being a broader purpose to medicine, it is found that all medicine possesses one attribute in common: medicine is used to allay discomfort. However, this can be accomplished in multiple manners. Antibiotics and antivirals fight diseases and/or infections to relieve unpleasant symptoms and prevent bodily harm.

On the other hand, anaesthesia and painkillers do not target direct sources of pain such as bacteria, viruses, or fungi; instead, they target human sensation as a whole to help people manage pain, providing both mental and physical comfort without directly aiding in preserving life. Accordingly, an idea is conveyed that medicine is not defined by how well it preserves and promotes life, but rather how successfully it provides relief to a patient; this, arguably, can be considered the true core reason behind why medicine exists.

Whilst it is important to merit the sanctity of life, it is equally vital to consider quality of life for all life forms. Medicine seeks to constantly improve this, but it also has its limits. There are situations in which medicine provides little help, including vast arrays of psychological illnesses and chronic physical conditions. Sometimes, these diseases can destroy the quality of life of suffering individuals through pain, indignity, or depression, causing some patients to desire giving their life for relief when other options are not available.

I personally believe that in these cases, it is important to listen to patients and provide them with what they desire (on the condition that they are able to provide consent, and all other available methods of treatment have been attempted with approval by qualified doctors), because death, whilst associated with harm, may be the only form of relief available in some cases; therefore, some patients may consider it to be their medicine. Due to this, I believe that not all medicine needs to save lives, but all methods to preserve life should be tried before using methods which do not support life, because whilst life is rare, living without dignity or in constant suffering may strip it of its value.

Extra Information

The Netherlands was the first country to legalise euthanasia under specific conditions.