Euthanasia, Merciful or Merciless - Essay Example

Euthanasia, Merciful or Merciless? In the past few years Montana, Washington and, to a lesser extent, Texas have joined Oregon in legalizing euthanasia, also referred to as “doctor assisted suicide” or “mercy killing.” The issue is seldom discussed in the political or public arenas but it is soon to become more prominent. A controversial subject for hundreds of years, the legality of euthanasia is slowly becoming more accepted as a humane method of ending the suffering of a terminally ill patient. Those who favor the practice claim it allows for a more dignified, less painful method of dying, permitting people the freedom to decide their own fate. Those opposed believe legalizing euthanasia invites multiple problems such a terminally ill patient wanting die ahead of schedule due mainly to financial considerations, possibly being coerced by relatives to do so. Some opponents say man is not entitled to “play God.” Doctors point to the oath they took which does not allow them to assist in a person’s death for any reason. Three states have legalized euthanasia and more are to follow. This seldom discussed issue is soon to be headline news that likely will spark court controversy and battles all across the country. Euthanasia is derived from a Greek word meaning “good death.” Writers in 18th Century England referred to euthanasia as the best way to “die well.” (“Definition,” 2007). Euthanasia describes a circumstance where an incurably ill patient is given a fatal dosage of medication, is taken off a life-support machine or is not administered “heroic measures” such as resuscitation and allowed to just die naturally. The patient could be “put to rest” with a drug cocktail either orally or intravenously with the assistance of a doctor but flow of the lethal dose is activated by the patient. The final decision remains with the person dying. That’s the reason it’s termed “physician assisted” instead of “physician administered” suicide. In the few states and countries where euthanasia is legal, the patient must be mentally alert, physically terminal and make the ultimate decision by their own hand. It is an unfortunate reality that most people die a “bad death.” The opposing views regarding euthanasia are compelling, often passionate and revolve around the concept of individual autonomy, whether people with incurable and usually painful diseases have the right to choose their death. Proponents of euthanasia think people should be allowed freedom to choose the way they live their lives including the method and time they wish to die. Euthanasia supporters are concerned with personal freedom but are more motivated by suffering and preserving human dignity. Many types of horrific diseases are a protracted, excruciating experiences. Loved ones are forced to watch as the patient becomes increasingly thin and gaunt, either writhing in pain or unconscious from pain medications, slowly wither away and die. What may be worse is the patient witnesses their loved ones anguishing over them and feels as if they are an emotional and financial burden. This scene play out in homes and hospitals every day yet serves no purpose other than to placate the “morals” of people uninvolved in the day to day horror. It’s not hard to imagine a grandmother, a person who has dedicated their lives to care for her family, spending their last few months lying in bed, unable to feed themselves or go to the bathroom without assistance, constantly in pain, coughing, convulsing and vomiting while her family agonizes. (“Should,” 2012). If grandmother’s dog were in the same circumstance even people opposed to euthanasia would be quick to say “do the humane thing” by putting the dog “to sleep.” How they can put the concerns of a pet over a grandmother is unexplainable. Euthanasia should be allowed because it is humane both to the dying person and the society they leave behind. People who are near the end of life require almost constant medical care. Nurses, doctors and other hospital staff are in short supply. The time spent caring for the terminally ill could be better allocated to those who are expected to recover. People who would benefit by receiving more care sacrifice their well being while the terminally ill who are made to suffer an excruciating, humiliating death. Overall healthcare costs would be lowered if the allocation of resources; machines and manpower, were transferred from the incurable to the curable. This aspect is especially worthy of discussion now as the “baby boom” generation is growing older. Medications are reported to be in short supply and would be better utilized for patients fighting to live and not for patients wishing to die. “Literally dozens of extraordinarily expensive cancer drugs and medical devices are now entering the market, all of them are “effective” - they prolong life but the added time is often measurable in weeks and months, not years, which yields very high cost-effectiveness ratios, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars per quality-adjusted life year.” (“Should,” 2012). Opponents of legalizing euthanasia, including many doctors argue it would force them to violate the Hippocratic Oath which states, in part, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (Growing Campain, 2012). The practice would also legitimize the devaluation of life leading to the suicide of people who are not in the final stages or in pain. Most doctors are principled professionals but not all. There are some who provide fraudulent prescriptions to patients they know to be abusing prescription drugs. If euthanasia becomes common and generally accepted as “normal” some, albeit a very small percentage of doctors, might prescribe fatal doses of drugs if the price were right. This is not an inconceivable scenario. The “noble” act of euthanasia would transform from a voluntary to an involuntary act. “Dr. Death,” the nickname given to jack Kevorkian, the doctor famous for championing assisted suicides, could become a more common terminology applied to unscrupulous doctors. (Growing Campain, 2012). Euthanasia is merciful for the dying as well as practical for the living. The practice would allow for more organs such as hearts, kidneys and livers available for transplanting into an otherwise healthy individual. A dying grandmothers liver, for example, could be used to save the life of a 10 year-old girl, a circumstance that could be played out 1000 times over every year. It’s inconceivable that a so-called “civilized” society would allow an elderly person to suffer while permitting a young child to die, both needlessly. If all we need to do is modify an ancient oath, it is well worth it and well past time to do so. It is a simple case of compassion and reason ruling over perceived morality and ethics. Which is more moral, more ethical; allowing a person to die with dignity or to allow them to shrivel away humiliated and in constant, excruciating agony? Thousands are waiting in line, praying in vein for a transplant that may extend their lives for decades while someone’s loved one dies a “bad death” just down the hallway. Spiraling medical expenses are bankrupting millions of people along with the country. That is an issue that makes headlines. Euthanasia is part of the answer to healthcare costs and is the humane, practical solution to end of life circumstances. It should be legal in all 50 states and given the evidence should not be a debatable topic. Works Cited “Definition of Euthanasia.” Medicine.net. 2007. Web. November 16, 2012 http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7365 “The growing campaign for euthanasia and assisted suicide.” Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life October 31, 2012 Web. November 16, 2012 http://www.mccl.org/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide.html “Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?” ProCon.org. November 16, 2012. Web. November 16, 2012. http://euthanasia.procon.org/ Read More