Analyzing Arguments for and against Euthanasia - Research Paper Example

? Euthanasia: Arguments for and against euthanasia Lecturer presentation The dignity and comfort of a patient during death is one of the most emotive topics in medical care currently. Due to the apparent discomfort and suffering that terminally ill individuals undergo during rehabilitation and dying stages, agitation for legalizing euthanasia has become more intense than ever before. The major arguments presented by proponents of euthanasia include autonomy, mercy, public policy, best interests’ arguments and golden rule. Opponents of euthanasia argue that the practice is against medical ethics and it defeats the rationale of medical care. In opposition of euthanasia, critics of its legalization present four main arguments, namely religious, slippery slope, medical ethics and alternative argument. However, modern medical care has relevant facilities to provide comfort and dignity to a dying patient without the need of legalizing euthanasia. Introduction Euthanasia remains one of the most controversial in the society today. The practice has been in existence for a long time but recently, calls for legalizing it have become more intense, in order to accord the patient the right to die with dignity and comfort. Euthanasia should not be legalized in society because there are other more humane medical interventions to guarantee a respectable death to a patient. However, the society remains polarized in opinion as far a legalization of the practice is concerned. This paper explores the various arguments for and against euthanasia in addition to the ethical consequences of providing and denying euthanasia to patients. Literature Review Care (2010, p1) defines euthanasia as “deliberate killing by an act or omission of an individual whose life is considered not to be worthy of living”. In society, the practice is perceived as mercy killing and is used in circumstances where a patient experiences extreme suffering especially from a terminal disease. Medical researchers have established a threshold for distinguishing euthanasia from other closely related practices. According to Care (2010), the following three circumstances do not amount to euthanasia. They include terminating a futile medical intervention in circumstances where the negative consequences of the treatment would prevail over the expected benefits. The second circumstance involves prescription of pain killing medications, in situation where such medicines are known to have a likelihood of causing premature or early death (Care, 2010). In case a patient dies from taking such medicine, the doctor cannot be accused of undertaking euthanasia because the intention is to reduce the pain but not cause death. Finally, refusal by a mentally astute individual to take life saving treatment is not considered as euthanasia because the physicians cannot compel an individual to take medication against his or her will (Care, 2010). According to Kappel (2007), patients have a right to accept or refuse treatment. In case a patient dies from his or her refusal to take the prescribed treatment, the doctor cannot be accused of carrying out euthanasia. Proponents of euthanasia have advanced various arguments pertaining to why the practice should be legalized. Several arguments have emerged from people supporting euthanasia including equivalence, mercy, golden rule, autonomy and public policy in addition to the best interests’ arguments (Thomasma, 1996). Compassionate argument holds that euthanasia is needed in the society in order to allow people to die with dignity. From this point of view, it is more humane to instigate euthanasia on a severely suffering and terminally ill patient, rather than subjecting such an individual to longer period of more pain and distress. The autonomy argument is founded on the conviction that the patient has the right to determine when to die. The public policy argument postulates that the practice could be regulated in the society by the government through legislation and enforcement of relevant laws pertaining to life (Thomasma, 1996). For the purpose of this paper, it is important to analyze each of the arguments supporting euthanasia to illuminate on the underlying reasoning. The argument from autonomy is based on the biological aspect of life (Dunnet, 1999). From this viewpoint, proponents argue that given that being “a human being is not the actual moral concern; it follows then that life is not essentially precious or sanctified because it is human life” (Thomasma, 1996, p63-65). The most crucial element, according to this argument is the possession of “biographical life”, which bestows a person the capacity to determine, plan, and follow the chosen pursuits and desires, of his life interests independently. Therefore, an individual has the ability to decide and determine the course of his or her life, including choosing when to terminate it, so long as it does not cause harm to another individual (Thomasma, 1996, p63). The equivalence argument holds that both active and passive euthanasia do not have a moral difference between them. In some situations, Boonin (2000) argues that passive euthanasia has been viewed as morally right, but active euthanasia has not. This argument maintains that both types amount to the death of a patient and if passive euthanasia could be morally justified, active euthanasia could be done the same as well. The argument of mercy is also one of the common opinions presented by euthanasia proponents. This argument is founded on the premise of humanity and humane treatment of the sick. In this case, failing to heed request by a terminally ill individual to terminate his or her life in order to prevent further unnecessary anguish is tantamount to cruelty and inhumanity (Thomasma, 1996, 62). Therefore, authorizing the sick individual to end his or her life is an act of mercy. The best interest’ argument supposes that if any action, including euthanasia serves the best interests of all parties concerned and it does not violate anybody’s right it is morally justifiable (Dunnet, 1999). From this argument, euthanasia serves the interests of the affected patient because ending the life prevents prolonged and further suffering. To the caretakers of the terminally ill patient, euthanasia saves unnecessary expenses and psychological distress of observing their loved one in a hopeless and painful situation. The golden rule argument is also one of the most prominent ideas presented by proponents of euthanasia. The argument is based on the decree of “doing unto others what you would like them do onto you” (Kappel, 2007, p26). Therefore, if another person is willing to terminate the life of a suffering person, then the patient is obliged by the rule to let another suffering individual to choose euthanasia too. Opponents of euthanasia have presented various arguments on why the practice should be not be legalized. They include religious, medical ethics, “slippery slope” and the alternative arguments (Thomasma, 1996, 73). Religious argument is founded on the belief that human beings are God’s creation, and hence human life is sacred. This implies that man has no Divine authority to terminate his life and it is God‘s responsibility to determine when to end the life of man. Therefore, allowing euthanasia is tantamount to playing God, a serious offence in most religious doctrines. Religions that subscribe to this view of human life include Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic faith (Boonin, 2000, 159). The alternative argument holds that advancement in medical treatment has made it possible to manage virtually all types of medical conditions reasonably without causing unnecessary suffering to patients, including the terminally ill (Care 2010). This implies that there is no sufficient reason for a patient to feel that he or she is suffering unbearably. In modern medicine, palliative care has made considerable progress in addressing the mental and physical pain of terminally ill patients. Hence, if appropriate care and environment is provided to such patient, he or she could have a painless and dignified natural death (Care, 2010). Medical ethics argument postulates that attempts to legalize euthanasia infringe on one of the major principles of medical care, which states, “a doctor must always bear in mind the obligations of preserving human life from conception” (Dunnet, 1999, 162). Therefore, according to opponents of euthanasia, legalizing the practice would jeopardize relationship and trust between physicians and patients severely. Maintaining a cordial doctor-patient relationship is one of the major important foundations in medicine (Boonin, 2000). The relationship ensures that the patient is able to trust the doctor, who is supposed to respond with compassion and utmost care to the patient’s condition and concerns. Legalizing euthanasia undermines the trust the patients have on the medical providers, a situation that could seriously undermine recovery outcomes. Kappel (2007) argues that patients with severe medical conditions could become suspicious of their physicians attempts to treat them, misinterpreting them as effort to kill. The slippery slope’s argument opposes euthanasia on the grounds that once the medical fraternity and the government legalize mercy killings, a dangerous precedence could be set that would change the attitude about life in society (Thomasma, 1996). According to Care (2010), the major worry is that voluntary euthanasia would gradually lead to involuntary euthanasia. Other implications of legalizing euthanasia include exerting a lot of pressure on severely incapacitated individuals in the society to request for it, in order to relive their families from the burden of taking care of them. In addition, fears abound that legalizing euthanasia would jeopardize medical research on palliative care and treatment of terminal illnesses (Dunnet, 1999). Providing euthanasia to patients is a gross violation of doctors’ ethics, an offense that could lead to prosecution in the court of law in most countries. Therefore, refusing patients requests for voluntary death does not lead to violation of their rights. Conclusion The issue of dignity and comfort to a patient during death remains one of the most compelling reasons for legalizing euthanasia, especially among the terminally ill patients. However, euthanasia should not be legalized because there are sufficient medical interventions available to provide the patient with more dignified and painless death. It is apparent that terminal sicknesses, such as cancer are costly to manage and they cause severe suffering to both the patient and loved ones. Due to high cost of managing the illnesses, patients from poor backgrounds encounter formidable challenges in accessing the appropriate medical care for their conditions. However, it is against medical ethics to help a patient undertake euthanasia because it defeats the logic of medicine. Policy makers should ensure that palliative care is provided to all terminally sick people in the society to ascertain that they die in comfort and dignity. Euthanasia is not a solution for respectable death, but a threat to life and society. References Boonin, D.(2000). How to argue against active euthanasia. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17(2), 156-169. Care (2010). Euthanasia. Retrieved on February, 15 2012 from http://www.care.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Euthanasia_briefing.pdf Dunnet, A. (1999). Euthanasia: The heart of the matter. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Thomasma, D.(1996). An analysis of arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide: Part one. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 5(1), 62-76. Kappel, K.(2007). The morality of euthanasia. Retrieved from on February, 15, 2012 from http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/kappel/tekster/pdf/The%20morality%20of%20euthanasia.pdf Read More