Ethical Issues in Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia The term “euthanasia” was first used by Bacon in the 17th century and it meant “easy death”. In the 19th century it obtained another meaning - to kill somebody out of pity. In this sense it means premeditated murder with the goal to alleviate unnecessary suffering. Nowadays euthanasia is defined as follows: “Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.” (Euthanasia, para.1) Euthanasia by action and euthanasia by omission can be distinguished. Euthanasia by action is intentionally causing the person’s death, for example by giving him injection or drugs in order to provide quick and painless death. Euthanasia by omission entails ceasing to provide health care or life-supporting treatment, which accelerates the onset of natural death. There is also the subject of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is performed on a patient in case he himself requests for it. Non-voluntary euthanasia includes the cases when a person himself cannot make a decision, due, for example, to such reasons as being mentally ill or brain damaged, being in coma or being too young (in case of a baby) There are a few reasons why euthanasia could be performed. The first reason the proponents of this procedure is the unbearable pain that the sick person endures. Of course, as the medicine technologies advance, and new medications are invented, there are more and more cases when the patient’s pain can be relieved. But this is not always the case. Sometimes, the pain is literally killing the person, but he keeps living. Another reason is that nobody can force a person to stay alive, if he does not want to. Of course, here we are talking about medical reason for not wanting to stay alive – that is when life does not make sense for a person, when he does not derive pleasure from it, but only constant suffering. Currently, lawyers, doctors and all the modern society are concerned about a number of questions, an answer to which have not yet been found. Does a person have a right to abandon his own life, contact a medical professional with a request of termination of treatment in case of a life-threatening disease or condition? If the patient has this right, then can the doctor grant him this request, considering the fact that his profession requires promoting life and not interrupting it? Is it lawful and humane to deny hopeless patient’s request to stop his suffering once and for all? These are only a few questions the answer to which needs to be found to solve this global problem of humanness of euthanasia. Euthanasia is a very “hot” topic in today’s society. There are pros and cons of it. People bring different arguments to prove their point of view: moral, religious, and physical as well. The author of the paper supports the euthanasia, and will describe the reasons why. But first, let us discuss both sides of the subject. The main arguments of the opponents of euthanasia are as follows: Euthanasia devalues the life of a person. It gives the right to another person to decide of whether one should live. The opponents say that only God can take a person’s life, because He is the one Who gave it. Doctors and other people of medical profession have given the Hippocratic Oath, which states: “I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.” (The Hippocratic Oath, para.4) It means that doctor cannot assist people in dying and they have to support living no matter what the cost. Euthanasia can be mistreated and become the reason for saving medical costs, when it is easier and cheaper to deprive a person of life, rather than to treat him or support his living at any cost. These arguments of course have the rationale to them. They are all well explained and quite understandable. But let us consider the proponents of euthanasia have to say. Euthanasia helps to relieve extreme pain. What is better – to live in pain, or to die? And here we are talking about extreme, unbearable pain, which does not have a chance of passing by. This is the case of a freedom of choice. If a person is given a right to live, he should be given the right to die too. If it is hard to call a person’s life – a life, but just a mere painful existence, wouldn’t it be better to grant him the right to die (in case he asks for it, of course) and spend the cost for treating the patients who have greater chance for recovering and living a happy life? The author of the paper believes that there may be situations when the application of euthanasia is fair and can actually be regarded and a humane attitude to the dying patient. If the person has a constitutional right to live, he must, in accordance with international standards and under certain circumstances, be entitled to address the question of its termination. Not everyone would want to extend the life on the verge of dying, at the same time experiencing physical and mental sufferings. The struggle for the life of the patient is valid only as long as there is hope that his salvation is possible. From the time when this hope is lost, the question of mercy as its higher manifestation is raised. And this is the case of euthanasia. The technique has been worked out long time ago. First, with the help of special agents the person’s mind is turned off, then the drugs are injected that cause the coma in person. The matter is that this procedure has been practiced for a long time in many countries already, but it was not called euthanasia, and did not rise so many concerns as it does now. Analyzing the situation, we should recognize that the actual question is not about authorizing or not authorizing euthanasia, but about when and under what circumstances it could be allowed, and how to control the appropriateness of its implementation. We live in the imperfect world, and people are imperfect, so there should be law regulations controlling the process of euthanasia. As BBC Ethic Guide states: “For example, it will be difficult to deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for selfish reasons or pressurise vulnerable patients into dying. This is little different from the position with any crime. The law prohibits theft, but that doesnt stop bad people stealing things.”(BBC Ethic Guide, Euthanasia) Life is a blessing only when the overall satisfaction prevails over suffering, and positive emotions prevail over negative. In case of euthanasia this balance is irreversibly broken. This is especially true when the sufferings of a person are unbearable and the person’s unwillingness to stay in this painful condition is confirmed by his clearly expressed will. The opponents of the euthanasia say that life is a blessing in any case, but I cannot agree with that. Life can be considered a blessing only till it has human form, when it exists in the realm of culture and moral relationships. When life degrades till vegetative, non-human form, it does not have its ethical approval. I think that helping someone to improve his position in life is always morally permissible. If giving somebody a lethal injection can improve a person’s life position, and the person himself wants to be deprived of life, then in my opinion, this act is not causing underserved harm to the person, and this act cannot be considered an act of injustice. This is what voluntary euthanasia is about. The next argument is a practical one, but still I would like to mention it. The maintenance of life on the stages of dying, carried out with the help of advanced technologies is too expensive. Specifically, the funds spent on maintaining the life of a person in hopeless situation, would be enough to treat dozens, hundreds of people who can be cured. This argument is very practical and has its value in the range of practical solutions, and it does not have to do with the moral justification of euthanasia, but nevertheless it should be mentioned to give the fuller picture. In conclusion I would like to state that, in my opinion, death is a private matter and an ultimate right of every person. If an act of euthanasia does not harm anyone, and has only the patient’s interests at heart, than it is permissible, and even helpful, it is an act of mercy, but not a crime. And people who assist a dying person is such case cannot be accused of murder or other unlawful or unmoral actions. Works Cited BBC Ethics Guide. Euthanasia. BBC. Web. 19 April 2012 Euthanasia. n.p. Web. 19 April 2012 Euthanasia. Pro-Con. n.p.Web. 19 April 2012 EXITs - FASTACCESS - A Starting Point. n.p. Web. 19 April 2012 Medical Ethics. American Medical Association. n.p. Web. 19 April 2012 National Kidney and Transplant Institute. The Hippocratic Oath. n.p. Web. 19 April 2012 Read More