Mercy Killing or Just Killing - Essay Example

Mercy Killing or Just Killing? Euthanasia is a contentious topic in the world, which has caused division both in the medical field as well as among various religions. It entails the act of ending an individual’s life deliberately in order to relieve suffering (Snyder 28). This paper examines both arguments in a critical manner thereby integrating arguments for and against the issue. It begins by first discussing reasons for accepting euthanasia by providing real life examples for conditions justifying the position. Later, the paper examines reasons opposing euthanasia by whatever means and condemns the practice. Proponents for euthanasia have passionately defended their position for accepting and adopting its practice. World people are facing ever-growing moral dilemmas. With the advancements in the medical field also come new procedures as well as easier ways to deal with problems. A popular moral dilemma that comes to mind is abortion. Now many people are against abortion for religious reasons. Moreover, just like abortion, many consider assisted suicide as murder. However, it is both ridiculous and irrelevant to argue on whether assisted suicide should be legal. When I was young, my oma (grandmother) was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. For years, she lingered in the home as her mind slowly decayed over time. First, she could not remember how to speak English. She would be talking and resort to her childhood language at random points. Therefore, she would say a 10-word sentence and a half of it would be spoken in English. Next came the hard memory, she would forget simple tasks and could not be left on her own. She would forget the location of the bathroom was in her own home. Next was perhaps the hardest to deal with, she forgot our names. First came distant relatives but finally she could not remember my mom’s name, her own daughter. Lastly, she forgot how to do pretty much anything; she could not button shirts, she could not even move at all. When she was in the home, she got bedsores from lack of movement. Moreover, she could not get up to go to the bathroom. Now this is obviously horrible but the worst were the few moments where she had a small amount of clarity where 2 seconds here 3 seconds there she would remember how to talk. I recall one such moment when she simply said to my mom who was visiting her in the home, she simple said, “help me.” I remember how it crushed my mother and crushed me. Now everyone has his or her own religion and personal belief but I will now ask you a very philosophical question. What is life? What is life without your family without the ability to talk, move, or even think? Some say life starts the moment the seed hits the egg. Conversely, others say it begins at birth, but when does it end? When is it a crime to leave someone alive? How can we let those we hold dearest suffer in pain for their last years? I ask you these questions because if I were to forget my own children and forget how to move I certainly would want to be put out of my misery. That magnitude of being trapped in your own mind is horrifying. This is the reason for supporting assisted suicide because no matter what god you worship, no matter what morals you follow, no one wants their loved ones to suffer for the last few years of their life. I say this because while my oma had a pulse for three years, she certainly was not alive. Support for euthanasia is common in the world. For instance, in Belgium where euthanasia is legal, two twins, who were born deaf and realized they would also go blind and never see each other again, were assisted to die in a hospital. In this case, the doctor came to the decision after the twins convinced him that they could not bear the thought of never being able to see each other again. Doctors at the Brussels University Hospital administered a lethal injection on the twins, ending their lives. Belgium has a high number of euthanasia cases, especially where patients are terminally ill, with approximately 1% of all deaths in Belgium being the result of euthanasia. However, in this case, what was unusual was that none of the twins were terminally ill or in extreme physical pain, which has been the major supporting factor for euthanasia. The case showed that euthanasia was expanding and the conditions for its practice were relaxed, making the argument against euthanasia more important. A core argument that contradicts euthanasia is based on religion; it contends that humans are sacred creatures, and thus, only God can choose the end of a person’s life (Snyder 58). In this case, committing euthanasia is an act against God’s will and is a sin. Belief in the sinfulness of euthanasia, as well as variations of these beliefs, is shared almost all religious faiths in the world, including Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Although euthanasia is a more complex issue among Buddhists and Hindus, who argue that the practice is an ethically acceptable act in particular circumstances, Buddhists and Hindus do not universally support this argument. A different argument, an alternative argument, contends that no reason whatsoever should make an individual feel that their suffering is intolerable, whether it is mental suffering, physical suffering or both (Snyder 59). This is because of advances in mental health and palliative care. Therefore, if a patient has the right to healthcare within the best environment, no reason exists for them to seek a painless and dignified death. Another argument against euthanasia is the slippery slope argument, which contends that when health practitioners and the government start accepting that killing their patients and citizens is right, they cross a line that sets a dangerous precedent (Coster 45). The major concern in this argument is that societies accepting voluntary euthanasia could eventually take the attitude that involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are correct. In addition, it could also lead to increased unintended consequences, such as people with terminal illnesses who require constant help or severely disabled people feeling the pressure of asking for euthanasia in order to avoid burdening their families. Also, legalization of euthanasia could discourage studies related to palliative treatment, which would possibly prevent the discovery of terminal illness cures (Coster 47). Finally, doctors could also be mistaken regarding the outlook of a patient’s diagnosis, making the patient choose to undergo euthanasia using wrongly arrived at decisions on their terminal condition. The medical argument against euthanasia contends that, the legalization of euthanasia would be a violation of the International Code of Medical Ethics; it happens to be one of the most essential ethics in medicine. Under this code, doctors are required to be always mindful of their obligation to preserve human life; starting from the example they are conceived (Scherer 70). Requiring the doctor to abandon his/her obligation in the preservation of life may portend a significant damage to their relationship with patients. Assisting the death of patients, on a regular basis, would turn into an everyday administrative task, resulting in reduced compassion from doctors in dealing with the terminally ill, disabled, or elderly. This would, in turn, cause patients with severe disabilities or complex health requirements to distrust health practitioners and their intentions (Scherer 71). In this case, they would consider their doctors as more likely to assist in their death, rather than take on demanding and complex cases. The Hippocratic Oath, which informs the Hippocratic tradition, expressed in its prohibition against the killing of patients, as well as against physician-assisted suicide. The oath holds that doctors must not prescribe any deadly drugs or offer advice that could lead to death in order to please anyone (Letellier 39). Euthanasia is not a forbidden act under the oath as a direct cause of a patient’s death. However, such a prohibition is deducible with more convincing force or greater reason from the prohibition against aiding in a patient’s suicide. Therefore, euthanasia involving the assisted death by a patient’s physician does not respect the Hippocratic tradition or the Hippocratic Oath (Letellier 39). Euthanasia also affords improper power to health practitioners that could result in its abuse. Laws should restrict doctors from the temptation of assisting awkward and terminally ill patients by speeding up their death. In addition, voluntary euthanasia will always end up being involuntary, especially since there will be an inevitable move towards flouting of legal and ethical safeguards. Moreover, legalization of euthanasia will put unnecessary pressure on the elderly by making it a duty for them to die, particularly if they feel they are overburdening their families. Hospital managers and especially, health insurers could find the practice less expensive than extended medical care (Letellier 40). In conclusion, euthanasia is a hot topic and everyone seems to have his or her won interpretations. Despite the controversies, I think it is high time for the world to become sober on this issue. For the advocates of euthanasia, it is a noble practice to terminate someone’s’ life during extreme conditions and circumstances such as when one is terminally ill. However, opponents of the same argue that no condition justifies the practice since a human being has no authority over life thus doing that constitutes murder, which is a crime. However, I support euthanasia only when recommended by a person undergoing a painful experience or unusual ordeal that makes life unbearable and not worth living. Thus, it should be performed by one’s consent and not from a doctor’s advice or recommendation. Works Cited Coster, Patience. Euthanasia. New York: Rosen Central, 2013. Print. Letellier, Philippe. Euthanasia: Vol. 1. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2013. Print. Scherer, Lauri. Euthanasia. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Print. Snyder, Carrie. Euthanasia. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Print. Read More