Analysis of the Legalizing Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia According to Kiarash Aramesh and Heydar Shadi, euthanasia is known as deliberate killing of a person for his/her benefit (Aramesh & Shadi, 2007). The word Euthanasia is derived from Greek words eu and thanatos. Eu means easy and thanatos means death, so the meaning of Euthanasia is easy death. (Seamus Cavan Sean Dolan, 2000) suggested that Euthanasia means easy death or death without any pain. In other words, it is the process whereby somebody is intentionally killed just to save him or her from one form of agony to another. The fact that the person was killed to save him from some agony is the major reason why euthanasia is widely refers to as "mercy killing". Of course, in relieving the pain, the victim has to pay the ultimate price. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the person’s life is eventually lost, many people across the world are presently advocating for the legalization of the so called “mercy killing”. Their argument is based solely on the fact that killing is the only way of relieving people from unbearable pain. However, legalizing euthanasia has the potential of causing grave consequences to the society. First, it can lead to a very high rate of death by euthanasia, a situation that may likely be unacceptable by a large proportion of the society. Basically there are three reasons why euthanasia must not be legalized in our society. These reasons are: ethical, religious and practical (Goel, 2008). Ethics is the most important reason why euthanasia must not be legalized. Many analysts are of the opinion that legalizing euthanasia will properly make people believe that killing a sick patient is normal and thus a right thing to do (Aramesh & Shadi, 2007). According the argument, even the introduction of a voluntary euthanasia can not the change the mentality as voluntary euthanasia itself is the very first step toward adoption of involuntary euthanasia, which of course is a great blow to individual right to life. Right from creation, life is seen as an inalienable right of every human. Thus, it will be very wrong and unethical for doctors to end the life of some people whom they describe as being unworthy to live. Euthanasia is naturally against the professional ethics of the medical doctors, who are specifically trained to prevent patients from dying or becoming seriously ill. Thus, ending patients’ lives, whom ordinarily they are supposed to protect, can never be an option. Moreover, killing patients absolutely contradict the famous Hippocratic Oath. This oath, which has been in existence for over 2,500 years, mandates medical doctors to protect the sanctity of life. The doctors themselves are automatically under this obligation whenever each of them reads out the oath which says: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Aramesh & Shadi, 2007). Thus, the oath does not in any way give room to euthanasia. Therefore, people that accept euthanasia accept that fact that their lives are no longer important and therefore must be ended. In addition, euthanasia does not consider the patients’ best interest which could lead to doctors neglecting their patients and stopping assisting them. Religious consideration is another reason why euthanasia must not be legalized. Generally, every religion of the world believes in the sanctity of life and it was generally believed that killing of any sort or for any reason is against the word and will of God (Aramesh & Shadi, 2007). When humans are created by God, they are automatically destined to live their lives to an old age. Indeed, old age is seen by many adherents of different religion as a blessing from God. "God is the owner and giver of life and his rights in giving and in taking are not to be violated" (Aramesh & Shadi, 2007). Also many religions believe that every human was created for a specific purpose by God and that their souls belong to God. Hence, since every human is created by God for a particular purpose, the doctors have no right to take somebody’s life as this is seen as an attempt to prevent the fulfillment of God’s will. Indeed, the practice of euthanasia is a clear violation of respect for human life and its implementation can potentially de-value the publics view about the sanctity of life. Since God is the absolute giver and taker of life, no human being has the authority to take the life of any innocent person, even if that person wants to die. Indeed, legalizing the euthanasia will create a very dangerous belief that humans are not supposed to encounter any sort of suffering. In other words, there is no purpose for people to continue living their lives under a very difficult situation since they’re are permitted to take their life in the most painless way. Practical implementation of euthanasia itself is another reason why this should not be legalized. Sincerely speaking, legalization of euthanasia as well as its implementation will have very grave consequences for the medical practices. For instance, there will definitely be less availability of proper medical and palliative care for people that are terminally ill. Medical workers will no longer be willing to dedicate their services, time and strength to patients that are terminally ill, since they are permitted to end their lives. Thus, more and more doctors as well as nurses will seek the most convenient way to exercise their professionally responsibility. Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia will eventually give medical doctors too much power. As we all know, absolute power is really intoxicating. Thus, there may likely be indiscriminate killing of terminally ill people as many doctors will see it as an alternative to save themselves from unnecessary inconveniences. If such doctors successfully get away with their evil deed, they will end up accepting euthanasia as the quickest way of settling any case of very sick patients. This will eventually kill the generally accepted norm of saving even the dying. Also, more and more patients will be pressurized into accepting euthanasia as a very reliable way of getting rid of their pains and agonies. Consequently, patients who are gravely ill may be made to feel guilty as they will easily be made to see themselves as a source of great inconveniences for their beloved ones lives. Therefore, such patients will be only too happy to accept euthanasia as the only way of ensuring peace of mind for their family member when in actually sense; they have a chance of being cured. Despite all these reasons, proponents of euthanasia argue that euthanasia is the only way of saving patients from great pains and agonies, and hence the practice must be legalized. They further argue that since every human being has the right over their body, it can neither be bizarre nor wrong for a patient to choose to die with dignity, rather than remaining in great pain. These people further argue that refusing euthanasia to a patient that demanded it is a direct violation of patients’ freewill and basic human right, as "neither the law nor medical ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive" (Goel, 2008). In reality, the arguments of euthanasia supporters hold little water. First of all, their argument that voluntary euthanasia is a sure way of freeing patients from pains doesn’t really make any sense as technology has provided so many medications that can eliminate pain of any magnitude. Again, more and more discoveries are being made in the medical field. The implication of this is increased availability of drugs for medical conditions that are hitherto incurable (Goel, 2008). Also, we have so many religious bodies as well as voluntary organizations that are dedicated to provision of faith, hope, guidance and support to patients that are seriously ill. These organizations are known to make patients stronger - and hopeful, which strategy most of the time enables them not only to overcome the pains, but also to stay alive and even recover from their ailments. A beautiful young woman doesn’t tell anyone about her decision. She ends her life by using different means available on market. These different means are offered by companies through campaigns for Dignified Death. (Council of Europe, 2003). Conclusion Several issues are most controversial in the world about Euthanasia. The issues are: should it be a crime to end your own life? Is it a legal act? We tried to discuss these issues in the light of different religions, human nature, rights and laws. According to the definition and meaning of euthanasia this is easy or painless death but many authors dispute that. Euthanasia is a difficult decision. Medical science advancement is also an element to help out people to attempt euthanasia. However this issue is also a moral problem as well as ethical in all countries. The main problem facing democratic countries is whether everyone is free to decide about his or her life without hurting someone else. It is possible that euthanasia is permissible in democratic law, but law should not be above morality and should not be enforced against morals and ethics. In conclusion, there is really no need for the legalization of euthanasia. It is outside of the domain of law. There are so many other solutions to the pitfalls listed by advocates of euthanasia. The term itself is against the ethics as well as religious belief of many people and hence must never be practised. Its implementation will continue to generate huge controversies across the world. Moreover, the instant consequence of its implementation will be a significant increase in the number of patients that die in hospital. This of course will result in loss of peoples’ confidence in hospital officials. Euthanasia should be punished and it should be regulated by law. Reference List Aramesh K. & Shadi H. 2007. Euthanasia: An Islamic Ethical Perspective: Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma And Immunology 6 (Suppl. 5): 35-38. Council of Europe, 2007. “Euthanasia-Ethical And Human Aspects”, Vol 1, Council Of European Publishing. Goel, V. 2008. Euthanasia – A dignified end of life: International NGO Journal Vol. 3 (12), pp. 224-231. Seamus Cavan, Seamus Cavan Sean Dolan, 2000. “Euthanasia: The Debate Over the Right to Die”, The Rosen Publishing Group Inc. NY. Read More