Argument for Euthanasia - Essay Example

Argument for Euthanasia Introduction Sufferings caused by ailment have become basic component of life in our societies.Human beings are susceptible to variety of diseases that relay different levels of pain on particular individuals. Normally, it seems painful to see a fellow human being suffer from a terminal disease. Due to humanistic feelings, some individuals came up with idea of euthanasia, which intends to terminate life of a fellow human being who suffers terminal pain. Euthanasia involves deliberate termination of one’s life with assistance of another person. Sometimes euthanasia refers to assisted suicide owing to the fact that a physician has to be involved in the act. I seek to defend the rule and existence of euthanasia in the contemporary society with much consideration of the impact that pain results to individuals. It is true that euthanasia relieves a patient from suffering prolonged pain especially due to diseases that are not easily treated. Euthanasia should be endorsed at all costs because it leads to easy death without necessarily letting an individual patient undergo long-term suffering occasioned by terminal disease. The proponents of euthanasia in the views of Soifer claim that the values of life encompass self- determination, which allows individuals, make proper decision in accordance with how they perceive good life (13). Individual patients have the rights of accepting to be under life sustaining technology or left to die. One is supposed to decide by oneself the nature of death he/she deems better as a way of alleviating suffering. In addition, ethics allow the family of the patient to call for euthanasia when it realizes that the victim may survive even after receiving series of treatment (Soifer 12). This may be viable especially in the conditions where the patient has become burden to the family in terms of medical care bills while posing no signs of improvement. The two modalities of assisted euthanasia should be applied depending on the circumstance that requires provision of assisted death to an ailing patient. The families of the patients suffering from terminal pains should always be allowed to opt for passive involuntary euthanasia to be carried on the patient. Considering the fact the family members of the patient are the ones who cater for medical of the patient, they should always be allowed to make decisions for doctors to overdose the patients or disconnect the patient from the sustaining machines. Practicing euthanasia on persons perceived to have little or no probability of surviving should be approved for the act save governments and individual intimates of the patient some amount of money and revenue that can otherwise be enhanced in developing other sectors if economy. Endorsing euthanasia will mean increased death rates in an economy, which may lead balanced distribution of resources in an economy thereby stabilizing and strengthening the specific economy. Active voluntary euthanasia proclaimed by the individual patient under proper mental consciences. Active euthanasia bears great elements of self-rights and self-decision concerning the manner in which an individual plan to conduct his/ her life. In addition, every individual has expanse right to die and should not be deterred from deciding death if his/her decision to die does not pose negative effects to other people. It is explicitly wrong to let an ailing patient continue to suffer over a disease that has no possible cure at the time that he/she has expressed willingness to die. With the growing population of ill people across the world to an extent that there arises immense shortage of health facilities, endorsing euthanasia will assist in evacuating the congested health facilities. When the terminally sick individuals continue to occupy beds and space, other patients who only suffer from curable diseases may lack and miss health facilities. I also stand to support the legislations formulated in Netherlands that supports practicing of voluntary euthanasia. In addition, the endorsement of laws governing and regulating euthanasia in Australia was timely bearing its focus on terminating human suffering. In order to effectively control the health of individuals with regard to the euthanasia, certain special rules need to be structured and adopted. Unlike the arguments due from opponents of euthanasia, no medical doctor can use the idea of to deliberately induce a death-causing element into the health of human being. In fact, the going by the current globalization, the American government proposes that euthanasia will only be carried after thorough court scrutiny over the legality of the situation. Considering the arguments posed by the opponents of euthanasia that the practice breaches the fundamental human rights, it is unjustified because it is the same human rights that accrues individual patients an opportunity to decide on whether to opt for euthanasia as a way of terminating the long-lived feeling of pain. I also deem it wrong for opponents of euthanasia to pile blames on the health professionals whose actions of conducting euthanasia mostly abide by the request of the client (Young). No law should be set to impede or frighten the doctors from executing their professional roles by participating in requested euthanasia. I also have to refute the opponents of the passive euthanasia by saying that it is comprises the rights of the family members of the sick to call for euthanasia. This is validated by considering the fact it is the family members who suffers the burden of paying for medical bills of the patient. The domain of ethics expresses different views on euthanasia, as some tend to support the act while some opposes the act. The proponents of euthanasia argue that life is the perquisite before all other things in the world. In addition, the proponents declare that without life no good can exist, therefore, it is fundamental to secure life and ensure its maximum productivity. LeBaron reports that the supreme value of life as presented by the proponents of euthanasia is the ability of an individual to exercise control in his/her life. In that line, the decision to live or not live entirely depend on the specific individual concerning how he/she regards life. It is not right to compel an individual to live a particular kind of life that seem depressive and tormenting to an individual patient. In that case, I strongly recommend euthanasia to an individual who suffer excruciating and terminal pain and cannot contribute towards productivity of a country. Despite the fact that euthanasia is emotionally painful to the relations of the patient, I strongly support euthanasia in the societies; I stand to insist that it is not right for a patient or the family of the patient to compel a physician to carry voluntary or involuntary euthanasia (Solfer 14). As much as barricade for euthanasia, it is vital to protect the physicians who believe that carrying euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong. No doctor or physician should be frustrated or forced to practice euthanasia at the time he/she is unwilling to engage in the practice. Furthermore, I stand to dispute the opponents of euthanasia who view the act as a deliberate murder by reiterating that euthanasia is not a practice decided and accomplished by the assistance but relies upon the decision of the arrived at by the individual patient or the family members who take great responsibility of the patient. It is also unjustified for opponents of euthanasia like Parnkaratz and Welch to argue that human beings should be left to suffer in terminal pain just because suffering is part of God’s punishment. It is a painful experience and psychological torture for intimates of a patient to see their partner suffering and grieving over pain that can be easily terminated to restore physiological and psychological wellbeing of the living and healthy individuals. In conclusion, I strongly support the idea of euthanasia in our contemporary societies. It is worth recalling that euthanasia is the best method for use in liberating patients from chronic and tormenting diseases. Euthanasia assists families of the patients to save money that could dump into unsuccessful treatment of diseases that are incurable. The idea of euthanasia is also important for use in hospitals especially when the space in the hospital is congested with large number of patients who suffer from terminal diseases. The decision on whether or not to opt for euthanasia for pain relief lies with the individual patient as reflected from the level of pain or close family members who bare great responsibility of the patient. Work cited LeBaron, Gam. Ethics of euthanasia: Rethinking the ethic. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. Pankrazt, Robert and Welch Richard. A Christian Response to Euthanasia. King’s Community Church. 2001. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. ProCon.org. Top 10 Pros and Cons: Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? 2010. Web. 28 Nov.2011. Russell, Mark. Euthanasia and assisted suicide: A Christian perspective. Christian Evidence Society. 2008. Web. 9 Sep. 2011. Soifer, Eldon. Ethical Issues: Perspectives for Canadians. 3rd Edition. Buffalo, NY; Broadview Press, 2009. Print. Wong, Dan. Legal Issues for the Medical Practitioner. Aberdeen; Hong Kong University Press, 2011. Print. Young, Robert. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Voluntary Euthanasia. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. Read More