Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia Introduction Euthanasia can broadly be defined as the process that hastens the death process or death of a person who is terminally ill and there is little hope of recovery. In recent times, euthanasia has come under lot of flak because it is still not a legal option in majority of the countries across the world. The concept of euthanasia is also not favored by people because it is considered morally and ethically wrong by different religions. But the wider implications of euthanasia are important considerations for near and dear ones of the sick person. I believe that every person should be empowered to make his or her own decisions about his or her welfare and therefore, euthanasia needs to be accepted as legally and medically correct practice under certain conditions. Compulsions and factors that are against Euthanasia Life is considered to be a gift of God to man and therefore it is too sacred to be killed, even if it is done mercifully. Hence, sanctity of life is major argument against euthanasia (Kuupeloma, 2000). Passive Euthanasia, when life support are removed with the consent of patient and family members as well as active euthanasia, when drug is administered to the patient for peaceful death is not accepted by Catholics who believe that life belongs to God and only He has the right to take it thus even the terminally ill person has no right to deliberately end it. Non-maleficence is another strong argument that does not favor euthanasia and believes that it can be misused by vested interests (McInerney and Seibold, 1995). The social scientists and legal experts are of the view that euthanasia is a form of suicide and therefore, should be considered ethically, morally and legally wrong action (Hendin, 1999; Emanuel, Fairclough & Emanuel, 2000). It is assumed that the emotional support of relatives and friends along with palliative treatment that relieves pain would greatly give confidence to the person to live. Hence, euthanasia must not be encouraged. Materstvedt et al. have also argued that “euthanasia is active by definition and so `passive’ euthanasia is a contradiction in terms / in other words, there can be no such thing” (Materstvedt et al., 2003). Compulsions and factors that favor Euthanasia Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing or request killing where the people wish to die because of mainly two reasons: they are terminally ill and there is no hope of recovery; and there is no medication that can provide them relief from incessant and unbearable pain. It should also be understood that it is not only the sick person who is in pain the family and friends are also undergoing huge emotional turmoil and mental stress. There is also the issue of huge financial expenses that are being incurred on the lost cause because the sickness is incurable and death is imminent – whether medications are given or not! Kant’s moral philosophy is a case in point where he emphasizes that people rationalize their actions according to what they deem as morally good (Schneewind, 1990). Hence, under the circumstances, opting peaceful death is a very personal decision which should be considered morally correct. The traditional approach like medical, behavioral and socio-economic approach to health are popular. The knowledge gained through religious ideologies and guidelines is complemented and supplemented by our inherent tendency to explore and widen its area of influence through all available means. Hence, whatever we do, it is based on reasoning or motivating forces that influence our thinking process and the way we think. The principles of patient’s autonomy and the right of the patient to decide about his welfare are vital considerations that should be respected (Kuhse an Singer, 1993). Hence, patient’s request for dignified death or euthanasia becomes highly relevant. Importance of my view Euthanasia is highly relevant in the contemporary environment of deteriorating health imperatives where the escalating cost of basic healthcare services are increasingly making them inaccessible to the poor and the vulnerable segment of the society. Euthanasia not only saves the state exchequer but the people in general of the huge amount of expenditure on providing the end of life facilities for people who are in constant pain and may not even be in a conscious state to acknowledge the people around them. Terminally ill patients who are capable of living a full life or even assisted life and are not continuously suffering unbearable physical pain have the option and right to the natural death. But where there is no hope to end the physical suffering of the patients and patients wishes for peaceful demise spending inordinate amount of money for uncertain period of time is an irrational approach. Indeed, it is inhuman to make people live through artificial means like medication when they are undergoing huge mental and physical agony when they know that they will not recover! The psychological repercussion of imminent death when the medications are merely used to prolong their physical pain is highly distressing for the patient as well as for the family members. Hence, allowing the patient to exercise his right to die in dignity is ethical. The community’s confidence in the medical fraternity is also maintained when they accept their limitation. ‘In 2002, the Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia, although it had been widely tolerated since the early 1970s. The rules are strict and cover only patients with an incurable condition who face unbearable suffering’ (BBC, 2009). Conclusion The rational or irrational behavior is subjective to one’s approach and understanding of the issue that broadly confines to individual’s choice and thereby his or her actions. Rational thinking involves an in-depth analysis of the situation where emotions are not involved. The articulated and well defined reasons detailing the pros and con of the issue form the basis for the type of thinking and the action thereon, which is broadly applicable to similar situations. I seriously believe that for person who is in perpetual pain and where death is the only solution, euthanasia is the morally and legally correct alternative. Indeed, despite the expanding knowledge, the limitation of medical should also be accepted as a fact. The informed choices empower one to decide what is good for one or not. Thus, decision of euthanasia becomes the legal and moral right of the terminally sick person who wishes to die in peace. Peaceful death is a blessing and it is important that they are given the right to die the way they want! (1082) Reference BBC News. (February 11, 2009). Euthanasia: a continent divided. Available from: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7322520.stm> [Accessed 15 December, 2009]. Emanuel, E. J., Fairclough, D. L., & Emanuel, L. L. (2000). Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 2460-2468. Hendin, H. (1999). Suicide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Chapter in: Jacobs, D. G. (ed.). The Harvard Medical School Guide to Suicide Assessment and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuhse H, Singer P. (1993). Voluntary euthanasia and the nurse: an Australian survey. Int J Nurs Stud;30:311–22. Kuupeloma¨ki M. (2000). Attitudes of cancer patients, their family members, and health professionals toward active euthanasia. Eur J Cancer Care;9:16–21. McInerney F, Seibold C. (1995). Nurses’ definitions of and attitudes toward euthanasia. J Adv Nurs ;22:171–82. Materstvedt, L J,; Clark, David,; Ellershaw, John,; Forde, Reidun et al. (2003). Euthanasia and Physician-assisted suicide: A view from an EAPC Ethics Task Force. Palliative Medicine, 17:97-101. Schneewind, J.B. (1990). Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant: An Anthology. Volume II. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Read More