Euthanasia Still Remains a Controversial Issue - Essay Example

Shary Zhou English 101 Johnson Todd 03.02 Euthanasia Still Remains Controversial The term ‘Euthanasia’ is described as the practice of intentionally ending up one’s life in order to relieve pain and suffering. It is also known as ‘mercy killing’. The laws for euthanasia differ from one country to the other. According to Michealsen et al (1304), in Great Britain, euthanasia is considered as a deliberate act of ending sufferer’s life to relieve his pain and agony. In Netherlands, euthanasia is considered as the termination of life by a doctor on the request of the patient. According to Harris (368), there are two types of euthanasia namely voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary euthanasia is one in which the life of a person is terminated without the consent of the sufferer. Most countries consider involuntary euthanasia illegal. It is considered as a murder even if the patient has terminal illness and is in great pain. It can take place by terminating the medication of the sufferer. It is against a patient’s will and is illegal in Netherlands under the Groningen euthanasia rules. Euthanasia carried out with the consent of patient, on the other hand, is known as voluntary euthanasia. In Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands, active voluntary euthanasia is considered legal by the law. The term assisted suicide is used to describe a physician assisted death. Many countries refuse treatment for patients who unfortunately get into a comatose (Dowbiggin13). In such cases where the patient has stayed in comatose for a long time, assisted death is always preferred and will, most of the time, be considered. It is, therefore, evident that euthanasia is given different recognitions and definitions in different countries. This also means that different countries have different regulations that either condemns or acknowledges euthanasia. While one country might consider it beneficial to its citizens and enact laws that promote its practice, another may completely criticize the act and prevent its practice. Euthanasia has a long history that is traced to many years back. It originally started in the era of Emperor Augustus who died in the arms of his wife without suffering (Dean, 276). The term euthanasia itself was first used by Francis Bacon in early 17th century. Even back then, it was considered as an option that was used to make a person die peacefully and without much pain and suffering. This proved to be helpful in cases where a person’s death was inevitable and would rather die a painless and comfortable death. There has been a heated debate concerning the whole issue of euthanasia. Many people have, both in the past and present, come up with ideas and assumptions, all that tries to either encourage the practice or denounce it. This has resulted in varying opinions concerning euthanasia. Debates concerning the ethics involved with physician-assisted suicide are dated many days, back from ancient Rome. There are past physicians who advocated for use of various aesthetics to control the pains associated with deaths. Prominent physicians like Samuel Williams who once used medications like morphine to terminate a patient’s life. Debates have ever since raged in different countries including the United States. There have even been various bills to legalize the act but most of them have been futile and dropped in their respective countries. The truth of the matter is that euthanasia comes along with certain pros and cons that need to be considered before embarking on the act. A patient has the right to a peaceful and painless death. This, therefore, means that helping a patient have a better and more relaxed death is more beneficial for the patient that leaving him to suffer excruciating pain and die in misery. Many people have also based their arguments about the practice using their social and moral values. However, the discussion and arguments about euthanasia basically varies with the kind of method adopted for the concerned person’s death. Oregon death with dignity act made it legal for their residents and they were allowed to request for a lethal injection (Perrett, 368). Christianity has also brought about a different argument concerning euthanasia. The religious groups involved have, as well, put many arguments forward. According to Dowbiggin (14), in Christianity, it is believed that taking one’s life for any reason is against God will and is like interrupting his commands. Their argument states that life is not for humans to take but God’s and therefore the whole practice of euthanasia should not be tolerated. Conservative Christians are totally against euthanasia. Despite this fact, in some other religions, euthanasia is supported and they argue that drugs to end suffering are good for the present society (Harris, 368). Unlike their other counterparts, the religions that recognize euthanasia allow it to be considered an option when need arises. They also argue that it should not be treated as an absolute wrong at all but rather a way to save a person from agony in cases where death is eminent. The world is not united in this issue of euthanasia. While many recognize it as a good practice, there are also many who still discourage it. There are several reasons why people have not yet accepted the practice. Many still argue that euthanasia denies a patient the chance to enjoy a final stage of growth. It is always after being diagnosed with a terminal disease that people often start redefining their lives. This is the time when they start mending their wrongs and correcting on their past mistakes. Many take the chance to make up with their friends and family members. If euthanasia were to be done, they would not get the chance to do so. One should also remember that we conquer suffering completely, not in any way by being mocked by its realities, but rather by facing it courageously. Euthanasia, whether voluntary or involuntary, denies us this golden opportunity. There are many scientists who also argue that process undermines medical research instead of promoting it. The patients are also usually vulnerable to irrational decisions by others in cases where they cannot decide for themselves. For those who do not recognize euthanasia, it is morally not acceptable and should not by any means be tolerated and practiced. In many countries, death is considered cruel and unethical. For this reason, the laws of many countries also do not encourage and allow it. For those who recognize euthanasia as a beneficial practice, there are usually many things that they put into consideration. It is usually viewed as a move that saves a family’s money. This they support by arguing that once a person has been confirmed to suffer from a chronic disease, there is no need to spend huge sums of money on expensive surgeries, medications and life support machines. Euthanasia, to them, also relieves both the patient and the other family members from the stress involved with the sickness. Many with similar opinions will always prefer helping a person die peacefully and painlessly by terminating their lives in the early stages of their suffering. The issue of euthanasia still remains an issue which people view differently and have different views about. While euthanasia might be beneficial to a person, for instance, in that it helps have a peaceful and pain-free death, a patient also has the right to live to his very last. Euthanasia can be argued to be a good way of saving a person from pain and sufferings that are brought about by chronic illnesses. However, it also comes with several limitations makes it inconsiderable to many. In my opinion, euthanasia is morally not appreciable and should not be practiced. Many families can even take advantage of such situation for personal benefits and this can add to the patient’s suffering. If we consider the religious beliefs, it is yet to be decided whether it should be put to practice or not. Top of Form Bottom of Form References Dean, Maury. Rock N Roll Gold Rush. New York: Algora Pub, 2007. Internet resource. Dowbiggin, Ian. A merciful end: the euthanasia movement in modern America. Oxford University Press, USA, 2003. p. 13 Harris, Nonie M. "The euthanasia debate." JOURNAL-ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS 147.3 (2001): 367-370. Michalsen, Andrej, and Konrad Reinhart. "“Euthanasia”: a confusing term, abused under the Nazi regime and misused in present end-of-life debate."Intensive care medicine 32.9 (2006): 1304-1310. Perrett, Roy W. "Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life." Journal of Medical Ethics 22.5 (1996): 309-313. Ramsay, JH Rolland. "A king, a doctor, and a convenient death." BMJ: British Medical Journal 308.6941 (1994): 1445. Read More