Is Euthanasia Morally Permissible - Essay Example

Running Head: IS EUTHANASIA MORALLY PERMISSIBLE Is Euthanasia Morally Permissible s Is Euthanasia Morally Permissible Introduction One of the most controversial issue of our time, is euthanasia, it has turned into an extremely emotional debate. Nevertheless, there ought to be an extremely sensible approach to this topic that puts the importance of individual free will more important than the will of religion. Yet if euthanasia is morally wrong, it still should not be restricted via law, as if a patient desires to die, that is strictly a personal affair, in spite of how irrational or immoral the need may be. My position is almost identical, for I do consider some instances of euthanasia to be morally wrong, if it is not voluntarily, however I also believe it ought to unquestionably authorize if it is asked for. Discussion Society has its own moral obligation to respect individual autonomy when we can do so without infringing on the rights of others. In the constitution assures the public complete freedom and the search of happiness. It would seem a contradiction then to prevent someone's pursuit of happiness that involves liberation from one's own life. Because we believe that life is intrinsically valuable only as a result of its ability for rational decision-making a free will, it should not be acceptable to prolong a with no intrinsic value. Out of respect for one's free will and rationality, a person should have the right to determine their own medical treatment, including euthanasia. Of course, this brings about the question of determining the actual free will that any person has in making choices regarding medical treatment. Since our argument rests in the hands of autonomy, it is important that patients are given some sort of psychological test to evaluate their rationality. People who are mentally ill or who are unable to perform such a test should not be given the opportunity for euthanasia, simply because they are not in the position to evaluate their quality of life. There is the opportunity for too many complications if we allow others to decide for the patient their value of life, so we must only allow euthanasia for those who still possess rational free will. We certainly do not want money-grubbing family members calling the shots, nor do we want frustrated doctors do so in an effort to save themselves time. The main case here lies in the suffering of unrelenting and continual pain that a terminal illness patient must endure. It should be considered morally disgusting to watch somebody suffer as they are helpless and continuous pain when one can avoid it. It is widely considered humane to put animals that are permanently physically impaired to death, and they do not even have the free will of humans. We need to allow people to receive the same mercy under law if they request it. Confronted with suffering which is wholly destructive in its consequences, there should definitely be a morale obligation to end it. Much of the opposition to our stance on euthanasia is deep rooted in religion. People claim that euthanasia is playing God and taking precious life. Nevertheless, current technological advances, like respirators and kidney machines, now can keep people alive for extensive periods of time, even when they are permanently unaware or irretrievably have brain damage (ttp://www.history.com/encyclopedia.dovendorId=FWNE.fw.eu069800.a#FWNE.fw.eu069800.a). who's to say that is not playing God Life is certainly not precious then, and many would even say it is undignified. In the Bible, killing is condemned, but they practiced capital punishment then and many countries still do today. The majority would agree that to kill out of resentment or hate is absolutely immoral, however what if the reason is sympathy, empathy, or love Another benefit of legalizing euthanasia is the prospect of medical conservation. Not everyone has the means to keep a family member on life support. Simply because one has more money, there are medical resources being denied to patients who might have a good chance of staying alive if given the same means. If treatment has to be denied to a few patients who know that they will pass away, then it is better to refuse it to those patients who are medically unsalvageable and will face death even if treatment is given to them. Not only this, but it would make more sense to let someone kill themselves than have their life's savings exhausted in a futile effort to prolong their agonizing life. The money and resources that are forced upon terminal patients now can better be used to help patients with a greater chance for survival. If euthanasia is legalized, however, some claim that it will result in a so-called slippery slope, making suicide more of an option than a last resort. I completely oppose view and think that there would barely be any misuse of the new law. The fact is that eighty five percent of deaths in America take place in hospitals and nursing homes; from which seventy percent involve not using life-sustaining machines. This can come under the criteria of euthanasia, yet it is unrestrained and repeatedly done without the patient even knowing about it. The burden of evidence for not considering the morality of euthanasia must rest in its opponent and not be forced upon the patient. The practice should actually be considered moral out of compassion and respect for individual free will. If we do not permit an individual's sovereignty in determining the degree of medical treatment, then we are sentencing a lot of fatally ill patients to gloomily and extremely painful death. Currently the way of thiking may be changing. Current surveys are a sign of that fifty four percent of doctors in Great Britain support euthanasia in severe cases. This is a hard and unjust question to ask doctors since what precisely is 'extreme'. Extreme might mean when somebody has cancer, is not in pain, and has no chance of recovery to one person; however to another person this might something totally different. Rule utilitarianism supports Euthanasia. Rule utilitarianism assesses rule in their possible utility, however assesses acts by its intentions (LaFollette 2006 22). Rule utilitarianism and euthanasia are now devoted to keeping alive people who have incurable and deliberating diseases could often more cost-effectively be devoted to the idea of wanting to die unpainfully (LaFollette 2006 27). Euthanasia too many people are considered murder, I, on the other hand, believe that it is a deathly sick person's own decision to continue living life or not. While a lot of patients are going thorough prolonged deaths as a result of serious illness which contribute to unnecessary pain, physically, psychologically, and mentally, it makes life difficult to live for both the dying person as well as his family. If a very ill patient decides to finish his life then they must not be forced to carry on dying in pain. A family has the option to remove a family member from life support if they are in comma or perhaps their brain dead. Often, the patient in the comma does not have any communicable opinion in making the decision; it is completely up to their family members. If family members can decide if one of their own lives or dies, why can an individual not order their life to cease Euthanasia is also a much better way of ending suffering than suicide. Disease infects many people and often leads to pain and suffering which in turn results in death. Once a person is infected with such a disease and they are aware that the disease will ultimately end their life, it should be their decision on how much suffering they will endure. If they decide they do not want to suffer at all, shouldn't they be entitled to live their life the way they want There is no reason to forcefully continue the needless suffering and pain of a deathly sick person. Suicide is often considered by patients who suffer life threatening diseases. These individuals are often not even sure if their illness will ultimately end their life. If it does turn out that they do in fact have an illness that will end their life, they may still have a much longer time to live before any suffering starts to occur. If individuals with deadly diseases are aware that euthanasia is an option it will most likely reduce any possible interest of suicide. Any form of euthanasia may be considered murder because killing a person for any reason is wrong. If a deathly sick person can go to a doctor in search of ending their suffering with euthanasia, why would none consider suicide instead Most would probably find suicide more convenient as there is no one else that will be involved. Euthanasia is murder because, any way you look at it, a person is being killed, and any type of killing is murder. People are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, be it religious or prosperous. Many deathly sick people believe in heaven, they may also believe that eternal happiness is awaiting them. If they believe their pain and suffering is in vain and they are ready to receive eternal happiness, how could one keep that from them Rather than euthanasia being considered a crime; shouldn't it be a felony to force pain and suffering onto someone Many people fall into commas and some become brain dead. In the case of this event taking place, the family of the victim of the comma has the option to remove the person from life support. In this case, the victim being unplugged has no communicable input in the decision to take them off the life support or not. If the family of somebody has to the option to put them to sleep, why can a person not decide weather they continue on with their life or not. If a patient cannot come to particular decision regarding their own life while they are conscious, the family members shouldn't be able to make such a drastic decision without the consent of the person being affected by it. Conclusion Many believe euthanasia in itself is considered murder, I too believe this. I am defending euthanasia with consent from the individual that is going to be put to sleep; also this individual must have an incurable disease. It is one's choice on how to live their life, if they contract a deadly disease that will eventually kill them, they have some options: They can live through the suffering and die from the disease, or they can decide that they do not want to suffer and they may want to end their life with euthanasia. Euthanasia along with consent from the individual in which it will affect is a much better alternative to suicide and it is a humane way to end needless suffering. References http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.dovendorId=FWNE.fw..eu069800.a#FWNE.fw..eu069800. Hugh LaFollette (2006); The Practice of Ethics, Wiley-Blackwell; 3 edition pp22-27 Read More