Legalization of Volunteer Euthanasia - Essay Example

Tyler Hmiel Eng120 9/6 Pro euthanasia- argumentative Introduction About a month ago, as I sat next to my grandfather on a hospital bed, I noticed he was drinking a coca-cola. A drink he like end enjoy so much. Even with his condition of lung cancer, which did not allow him to take such drinks, he clung to it. I felt this was too much for him. In about two hours, the nurse started giving him Adavant and Morphine to keep him comfortable due to the agony of the very coke he drunk. To me, this is not the correct thing to do. And the question that came to my mind was: for how long will he be administered with Adavant and Morphine whenever he takes his favorite drink? Is it justified for him to continue suffering in this manner? In this regard, the issue of euthanasia came to my mind. With such deliberations, I considered the use of euthanasia to be the better option. Euthanasia is argued to be one of the contemporary moral issues. Euthanasia is defined as an act of induction of gentle and easy death to people suffering from incurable and painful diseases (Scherer and Rita 13). However, this concept has been debatable for a long time, with its opponents holding to their position that euthanasia should be discouraged and prohibited while its proponents argue that it is the only way to end the agony of pain and distress. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the arguments arising from this debate holds both moral and legal concepts. The initial campaign towards the legalization of volunteer euthanasia has strong bases with the empathy that seeks to put to an end suffering or overwhelming incapacity where the cases are terminal. In fact, it critically questions the justification that is connected to euthanasia with regard to permitting life to be continued when the patient is in uncontrollable distress and pains hence the return to health and the life enjoyment is evidently impossible. The major deliberation of opponents of euthanasia revolves around religious beliefs. Under Christian view, it is only God who has the right to determine who to die when and how. Therefore, any concept introduced that tends to contradict this belief is viewed as unwelcoming (Seamus 14). In fact, the concept of euthanasia is argued to be against the will of God, and it is viewed as committing a sin. Both the person assisting the patient and the patient himself are viewed as sinners as long as they jointly consent on the same. Proponents of euthanasia believe that there is no need of people who are terminally ill and undergoing pain to continue suffering. However, their stand on the issue is based on application of law and tends to disregard religious beliefs in it. This is highly notable in discussions on issues pertaining human rights. They believe that people have a right to choose ways of ending their agony. It is apparent that terminally ill people have a lot of problems surrounding them. Firstly, some undergo painful moments and psychological torture. For example, cancer patients may be languishing in pain, but in addition, they may be stressed due to the fact that they for sure know that cancer is a killer disease and that they are certain that they will die any time. In this regard, such patients may find it difficult to even contain the disease since their belief and perception about the disease overcomes any available means of containing it (Scherer and Rita 14). In light with this, it is true to argue that such patients may be helped by subjecting them into euthanasia. In another dimension, it is apparent that family members and friends of people with terminal illnesses and who might be undergoing pain would be affected in one way or another. The first and most common way through, which they are affected, involves costs incurred to manage the sickness. Some diseases are expensive to treat. Therefore, this means that patients spend a large number of their resources to cater for the treatment. When condition worsens and probably the patients exhaust their resources, they turn to their relatives and friends for help. Under such a circumstance, it is correct to argue that such patients would be relieved if they are subjected to euthanasia. This will also go a long way in relieving the burden imposed on his/ her relatives and friend. To some extent, the patient’s sickness can affect family members and friends psychologically. For example, the pain of a son or daughter seeing their father languishing in pain for a terminally disease may be unbearable. Since euthanasia is highly condemned by various religions, it is vital to point out that individual view of the same should be put into account. Precisely, it would be crucial if the person suffering from a terminal illness is given an opportunity to decide whether to use euthanasia or not. Depending on the moral view of the individual in relation to what they are undergoing, the decision whether to use euthanasia or not should be not dictated upon. In fact, this option can be substantiated by the utilitarian ethical theory, which stipulates that the choice that yields more benefits to the majority is argued to be the correct choice (Longmans 10). In regard to this, the patient should be allowed to weigh out all the circumstances surrounding the use of euthanasia. This can focus on issues ranging from his beliefs, how his family members are affected, his financial status, the pain and agony of the disease heis suffering from, and above all, evaluate who benefits most when he dies. However, such decisions forms a controversial debate on individual moral obligation of taking own life. For example, for those against the use of euthanasia on the grounds that it is morally wrong, they may still argue that God does not make or let people suffer. Therefore, the proponents of euthanasia would draw their argument that since God cannot make or allow people suffer, the decision to end the suffering through euthanasia can be justified. On another perspective, proponents of euthanasia can argue that under Christian religion, no one is supposed to judge others, since this is only left to God to decide (Scherer and Rita 17). Although there may not be a direct and precise reference of a course to ascertain that God tends to exclude some situations on his laws, proponents of euthanasia would argue that the intentions of taking ones life are what matters most. Another major concern is on the physician or medical practitioner who assists the patient to die. Some people argue that they have no obligation to assist anyone dying whether the patient consent to it or otherwise. However, some people believe that they should follow their professional ethical code, which stipulates that among other things, they should try as much as they can to reduce the patient’s suffering and pain. The belief is that since the medical practitioner does not decide on whether the patient should be subjected to euthanasia or not, they can not be condemned over the decision made by the patient. The ethical contribution toward this debate dictates that although God is the provider of being and that we were made in his own imagewith the consideration of having meant to fellowship withhim as an essential aspect of life, we arealso at a point where life is only livable if it leads to something that is associated to happiness or fulfillment (Keown 75). Proponents argue thateveryone has the right to life and hence do not understand why we should not have the right to death. In addition, they argue that euthanasia may be termed as the most appropriate thing to do with regard to the situation that a particular person is especiallywhenthere is no other alternative. It is also important ethically to respect the desires of other people as well as the fact that people are entitled to a pain free death that is full of dignity. The situational ethics on euthanasia are typically based on single maxim of agape love. It dictates that any action is said to be right if its final conclusions leads to love while if it results in selfishness it depicts on the dependence of the morality of the situation. Essentially, it brings out euthanasia as right and loving if someone in great pain entangled with low life quality is released fro m the situation. Conversely, euthanasia could be said to be wrong and a selfish act especially when a relative of a patient suffering from a terminal illness pressure the patient to involuntarily request for euthanasia in order for the relative to gain material wealth. Although there is no specific law that touches on the use of euthanasia, it is apparent that much need to be done in order to set the pace for people who chooses to use euthanasia. The law should sanction the use of euthanasia to specific people with specific circumstances.Euthanasia can be legally termed as physical assisted suicide, which helps realize the purpose of a good death, which is more accurately and of experience that is of quality (Dowbiggin 21). Current debate have tended to seek clear answers on whether this practice is appropriate to an individually, through the active or passive means. Moreover, the legal perspective also seeks to know whether the provision of morphine for arelief in pain in connection to risk of respiratory depression and or premature death refers to euthanasia. According to the debate there is no moral decision that is connected to euthanasia, but the ethic that pertain to social policy and practice. Of most important to consider is whether the legalizing of this practice will help millions of people who are suffering due to terminal illness all over the world. In essence, we should be able to determine whether the legalizing will help the dying or harmed people by allowing them to undergo the euthanasia or making the procedure available to them. It is, therefore, important to first acknowledge the pros and cons of permitting the procedure in relation to the individual patients. These decisions in relation to the laymen and affirmed by the legislation must be in a position to clarify the stakes of choice at hand. Besides, any commentator who is reasonable enough in this debate should admit that no matter what kind or type of social policy in relation to euthanasia is used there is a high presenceof abuse especially through situations where the lives of innocents patients are ended intentionally due to coercion or lack of provision of palliative measures or simply through the patients not giving consent. Proponent of legalizing euthanasia argue that there is the need to realize and respect the autonomy of any individual in that the individual should have the authority to control the timing and the manner in which he or she wants to die without necessarily having to consider his or her family, friends or even relatives who may have a different opinion. Legally speaking this particular and withregard to the keys safeguards, it is required that the patient instigate and consistently request for the procedure (Dowbiggin 23). There should able the presence of unrelenting pain and /or physical suffering that cannot be controlled except through euthanasia. Additionally, there must be a second opinion from another physician that goes in line with the previous one to affirm that the only there is the prognosis of the patient and that he /she is in his right mind in acting voluntarily towards the decision hat he/she is making. The second legalization that is discussed by the proponents is to alleviate the pain and suffering that the patient goes through. Although critics have argued that, it is difficult to determine the level of pain and suffering that is allowed for euthanasia basing their claim on the fact that there could be the presence of abuse, where people who do not have a serious issue might decide to go for the procedure without been genuine. It is evident that thereis a clear difference between pain and suffering. Pain is objectively fair with reference to the shared notion of what it constitutes. This occurs especially when there is physical assessment of what amount of pain is present in a patient and it use. However, suffering is more crucial as it is associated with mental torture and other complicated factors. This helps determine, which patients are justified to undergo euthanasia. Third legalization issue is based on the fact that, any terminally ill patient requires a psychological assurance especially from the physician because they are at that point of life where they are sure of not living for long due to their health condition. In this case, the patient long for a quick and more peaceful death to relieve their conscience from the burden of a disease that they will not get held from especially with the knowledge that the disease will cause a painful death. Conversely, the legalization of euthanasia has opponents who have been identifiedwith several harms that are associated to this procedure. First, the opponents argue that euthanasia undermines the integrity of the medical practitioners by trying to degrade they capability to handle their patients (Seamus 12). Second, it creates a psychological anxiety for the patient who are about to undergo the procedure especially with the notion that they are going to have a painless death due to lack f solution to their health problems. Third, is the possibility of coercion of patients especially by the medical practitioner or family members into requesting for euthanasia, which could be against their wishes. Fourth, possibility of provision of euthanasia without their full consent due to the fact, that some of them are mentally ill or incompetence. Fifth key importance of the opponents involves the psychological torture that fills the family of the departed patients. Conclusion The major deliberation of opponents of euthanasia revolves around religious beliefs. Under Christian view, it is only God who has the right to determine who to die when and how. Proponents’ stand on the issue is based on application of law and tends to disregard religious beliefs in it. However, it is correct to argue that patients suffering from terminal illnesses may need to end the agony of pain and psychological torture. This would not only relieve them, but also relieve their family members and friends. Proponents argue that everyone has the right to life and hence do not understand why we should not have the right to death. The law should sanction the use of euthanasia to specific people with specific circumstances. Works cited: Dowbiggin, Ian. A concise history of euthanasia: life, death, God, and medicine. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print. Keown, John. Euthanasia examined: ethical, clinical and legal perspectives. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998. Print. Longmans, Green. Utilitarianism. London: Harvard University. 2008. Print. Scherer, Jennifer and Rita, James.Euthanasia and the right to die: a comparative view. Lanham [u.a.]: Rowman& Littlefield, 1999. Print. Seamus, Cavan. Euthanasia: the debate over the right to die. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2000. Print. Read More