Euthanasia as a Topic of Heated Debate since Time Immemorial - Essay Example

Euthanasia Euthanasia has been a topic of heated debate since time immemorial. By definition, euthanasia is the painless killingof a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, or in an irreversible coma. It typically refers to the practice of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve them from agony and suffering. Euthanasia is a topic that has received both acceptance and rejection in equal measure from the society. On one hand, proponents of the practice feel that death is preferable to intense suffering, and so the practice should be glorified and legalized. On the other hand, the opponents feel that no one has the power to decide on the death of the other. To that point, the society is left in a dilemma: is euthanasia a good practice, and should it be legalized? Contemporary debate on euthanasia was initiated by Samuel Williams, a schoolteacher, in 1870. According to Dowbiggin (2007), Williams did so by giving a speech on the issue at the Birmingham Speculative Club in England. The speech was subsequently published in a one-off publication entitled ‘Essays of the Birmingham Speculative Club’. In the speech, Samuel Williams sought to convince the people to accept euthanasia as a good medical practice. “He proposed the use of chloroform to deliberately hasten the death of terminally ill patients” (Dowbiggin, 2007). His argument was that it is the duty of any medical attendant to administer chloroform in cases of hopelessness and painful illness. The speech was published and reviewed in ‘The Saturday Review’. From that, other writers came up and published their views on the speech and the issue in general. That is how we came to find ourselves caught up in the debate today. Now that we know what euthanasia is, and how it came about, it is worthwhile to discuss the classifications of euthanasia practice. This classification is done according to whether someone gives approval or not. The first type is voluntary euthanasia, where the patients give consent to the procedure and brings their death with the assistance of a physician. It is also referred to as ‘assisted suicide’. The other type is the non-voluntary euthanasia. In this case, the practice is performed where the consent of the patient is unavailable, for example child euthanasia. The third and final type of euthanasia is the involuntary type. This involves a physician performing the practice against the will of the patient. There are arguments for and against euthanasia all around us. With each side pulling towards their direction, my position in the raging debate is that euthanasia should be legalized and accepted by the society as a necessary medical practice. The following are my reasons for support: To begin with, there is no reason to let a terminally ill patient go through all the anguish and suffering that come with their illness. What happened to humanity? It goes without saying that any person who has any shred of humanity would not prefer to watch someone suffer in great pain (Keown, 1997). A walk through hospital wards makes one’s spirits go so low that they wish they could do something about the patients’ suffering. Luckily for the physicians, there is something that can be done - euthanasia. The point here is that since we can help our fellow human being come out of their pain, there is no good reason not to do it. If anything, the illnesses in this case are usually terminal. For that matter, euthanasia should be legalized in order to save terminally ill patients from their intense suffering. Secondly, euthanasia helps relieve the patient’s family members and friends from the overwhelming expenditure associated with terminal illnesses. We are living in a period when it is becoming harder and harder to make a decent living. Why then should we subject a family to the torture of spending their last ounce of revenue for the patient? As if that is not enough, it is everyone’s common knowledge that there is absolutely no hope of the patient recovering from the terminal illness. It therefore means that the family is forced to put up with expenditures that will add no value to their lives. Most families are usually forced to go into huge debts so as to cater for their patient’s medical bills (Keown, 1997). And what for? This situation is very unfortunate and should, therefore, be rectified immediately. In addition, euthanasia is the easiest option for those patients who suffer from incurable diseases and where effective treatment is not an option. In this case, the patient is said to have been “put to sleep” (Moreno, 1995). It occurs when a patient desires to give up the fight and sees no reason for living until their very final breath. Euthanasia is nothing but valid in this situation. At the end of the day everyone has all the rights to decide the destiny of their lives (Moreno, 1995). It is very unfair to make euthanasia unlawful and hence force people to put up with terminal illnesses they do not want to fight against anymore. In this instance of euthanasia, it is purely voluntary. This only acts to justify the need for euthanasia’s legalization. The popular belief by many people that family members can take advantage of legalized euthanasia to conspire and kill a patient is just that: a belief. It simply holds no water whatsoever. For starters, no research has ever been undertaken to substantiate the claim, and neither are there any other surveys done on the issue. It therefore means that the belief is just an assumption with no basis. Even more convincing is the fact that a family does not need to be directly involved in the killing of their patient if that is their intention. All it would take is for the family to discontinue their support of the patient. This can be by way of cutting financial, emotional and physical support. By so doing, they would succeed in killing the patient, all in the absence of euthanasia. For that reason, conspiracy to kill family members fails to merit as a point against euthanasia. Another group of people hold the thought that permitting the practice of euthanasia would open flood gates for many societal problems. They argue that the medical professionals would cease to give their best to save lives, and even when they make mistakes, they would simply turn to euthanasia to wipe the blame. That is out of question. It is advisable to check countries where the practice has been legalized and borrow a leaf from them. Such countries include the Netherlands and Belgium, and states such as Oregon. The countries are running very smoothly, with no societal problems resulting from that permission. Sometimes in life we really need expert advice when issues become too controversial for laymen. Members of the medical profession are in agreement with the fact that euthanasia is a very necessary procedure when the conditions are too favorable. A research done in the United Kingdom on the attitudes by doctors to assisted death in 2009 proves the point. The findings showed that 74% of doctors in the UK do support euthanasia on patients that have an incurable and painful disease and would perform it willingly (Craig, et al., 2012). These are the men and women in whom we have entrusted our health welfare to. Going by the statistics, one hardly needs any further convincing of the fact that assisted death is not bad. If anything, it is the very same medics that came up with the practice since it is a medical procedure. On the other side of the coin, the main point used by the opponents of the euthanasia is that only God has the right to end life because only He was responsible for the same. They believe that it is, in fact, morally wrong and can only equate it to homicide or murder. Such people are mainly humanitarians and religious leaders and people. They, therefore, stand in the fore-front in defense of the status quo, that euthanasia should not be permitted. In as much as there seems to be a valid argument in that point, nothing can be further from the truth. The response that argument receives is rather straight-forward: does God celebrate when we are in intense suffering and pain? Does He enjoy it when we sit back and watch our fellow human beings languish in agony, or would He prefer us to save others from their pain and suffering? The answers to these questions are the same answers to the argument that the point raises. “It goes without saying that even the supreme creator, God, would want us to enjoy our lives and be free from pain” (Craig, et al., 2012). In fact, according to holy religious books, God wants us to stand in for our fellow human beings and help them whenever we can. In conclusion, euthanasia is a contemporary subject that has received both praise and opposition in the current generation. Whereas some people feel that the practice is humane since it relieves the patient’s suffering, others feel that it is inhumane because it is as good as homicide. This essay leans towards the side of the argument for euthanasia. It emerges as the best option in terminal illness situations where there is no hope for recovery. It not only relieves the patient’s pain but also saves the overwhelming expenditure that usually goes into providing for their medical attention. It is apparent that this issue needs to be approached with a very critical mind. References Dowbiggin, Ian (2007). A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. , 20-101. Keown, John (1997). Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 147-200. Moreno, Jonathan (1995). Arguing euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide, And The Right To Die, 22-78. Craig, P., Sorell, T. (2012). Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach, 68-130. Read More