Euthanasia Should be Encouraged - Essay Example

Euthanasia Should be Encouraged Introduction The word euthanasia can be defined in a number of ways. Keown, for example, explicates euthanasia to involve "Doctors making decisions which have the effect of shortening a patients life and that the decisions are based on the belief that the patient would be better off dead" (10). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) are similar as both involve ending the life of patient. The decision to end a patients life is a largely debated issue. Some people are in support of euthanasia while others strongly oppose it. In most cases, these debates mainly revolve around the legal, ethical, and religious perspectives of human life. This paper explicates the reasons why euthanasia ought to be encouraged. The two types of euthanasia Before expounding on the reasons why euthanasia should be encouraged, it would be imperative to outline the two types of euthanasia. Hinchak posits that the two types of euthanasia include active and passive (3). In delineating the difference Hinchak asserts that in active euthanasia, there must be a person to perform the action whereas in passive euthanasia, death is caused by an underlying medical condition (3). Another difference is that the main objective of death in active euthanasia is to end the life of an individual as an act of compassion. In passive euthanasia, on the other hand, the main objective is to let an individual die a natural death ( Himchak 3). The duty to die In the modern world, human beings are faced by many health problems. Some of these health problems are regarded as a problem to the society. A good example of such a health problem includes dementia. Herring argues that individuals suffering from dementia practically dissipate other peoples lives (535). Too much burden is placed on the family as such individuals require constant and unrelenting care. There is also an argument presented by Herring that individuals suffering from untreatable conditions such as dementia wastes public and government resources (535). To understand the perspective presented by Herring, it would be important to focus our attention to the developing world. Poverty level is very high in developing world and therefore the world is obligated to provide aid and support to these countries. Caring for people suffering from untreatable medical conditions in regard to Herrings perspective is done at the expense of helping other needy individuals in the world (535). Euthanasia as a means of saving resources and time Other than wasting public and national resources, caring for such individuals with terminal illnesses wastes peoples time. Conditions in the contemporary world require people to world long hours in order to comfortably support their families. A family member given the role of caring for the terminally ill patient is unproductive economically. This means that the caregiver also becomes a burden since as other family members provide for the terminally ill, he or she has also to be supported. Caring for terminally ill patients is also very expensive. In other worlds, it drains the family, friends, and the society in general economically. Herring argues that such individuals have a duty to die as they waste peoples time and resources (535). Based on this assertion, euthanasia should be encouraged. A methodical investigation conducted in the US and cited by Kristjanson and Aoun reported that a great proportion of families caring for a terminally ill patient spend an average of 10 percent of their total income on health care costs (363). Conversely, there was an inclination towards a tendency to sell family property in order to afford the high costs of care characteristic of the current healthcare systems. Other respondents reported to have taken a loan or mortgage, and even finding more than one jobs in an effort to cater for the high costs of care (Kristjanson and Aoun 363). Autonomy Permitting euthanasia can be viewed in relation to autonomy. An argument presented by Herring focuses on the fact that if peoples independence is a fundamental aspect of human life, then anyone willing to die should be allowed to do so (536). However, there are opposing views that this may allow physically sound or healthy individuals to have the option to end their lives as they please. The postulation in support of autonomy therefore rests on the assumption that only terminally ill persons ought to be allowed to end their lives. In view of autonomy, a patient has the right to choose the type of care and treatment of his choice. A physician ought to respect the choice of the patient whether it involves stopping or advancing treatment. On the other, it is the obligation of the physician to report patients who refuse treatment, and their conditions present a health risk to the public. If a patients choice of treatment and care must be respected, then if his choice is to end his life as a result of pain or if his condition is terminal ought to be respected. Dignity End-of-life care is imperative for the dignity of the patient. An article by Allmark titled Death with Dignity asserts that it is the duty of healthcare providers to ensure that terminally ill patients under their care die a dignified death (255). A dignified death entails the doing away with predicaments or hurdles that may compromise a persons self-respect or decorum. Under the Aristotelian theory, an action aimed at maintaining a persons dignity such as euthanasia is justified and ought to be allowed (Allmark 257). It is important to note that some medical conditions eliminate the likelihood of a dignified life. For instance, pain eliminates such dignity, and therefore, any action that would help alleviate pain ought to be allowed. Based on these perspectives, euthanasia should be encouraged. An example in support of the need for a dignified death is the case of Tony Nicklinson elucidated by Miller in an article published in Mail Online in 2012. Tony is a patient suffering from a stroke and he depicts his life as "Dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable" (para. 3). Tony, as cited in this article by Miller argues that he would have peace of mind if he is given the right to make a decision to end his own life (para. 14). To quote Tonys words, "I am washed, dressed and put to bed by carers who are, after all, still strangers. You try defecating to order while suspended in a sling over a commode and see how you get on" (Para. 15). Tonis case is a classic example of how illegalizing euthanasia drives patients to an undignified life and death. It is not human to deny a patient like Tony the right to decide on whether to live or die. His suffering and his personal experiences clearly shows that his condition has removed his dignity in life and thus ought to be allowed to euthanize. Allowing him to determine his life would give him a dignified death. Kingsbury in his article New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia published in 2008 in the Time Magazine assert that 80 percent of Americans are in support of initiatives that would allow them to determine their own lives (para. 1). These Americans believe that the government ought not to deny them the right to choose to end their lives in case they develop terminal illnesses. A time comes when a person cannot lead a dignified and normal life due to illnesses and therefore should decide the time and method to die. Take for instance an adult depending on others to bath and clothe him or her, as mentioned earlier in the case of Tony. This is in contravention to the right to privacy and hence their dignity is taken away from them. Pain and anguish among family members According to Kristianson and Aoum, "The diagnosis of terminal illness of a family member prompts feelings of loss or threatened loss" (362). This assertion shows that family members are also affected emotionally when one of their family members is diagnosed with an untreatable terminal illness. In my opinion, the psychological problems associated with the fear of losing a loved one cannot be compared with the psychological problems associated with caring for a terminally ill patient for the rest of their lives. Family instabilities can arise from experiences linked with caring for a terminally ill person. Therefore, it can be argued that euthanasia can significantly reduce pain and suffering for those involved in caring for the terminally ill person. Subsequently, euthanasia can give family members and friends time to prepare for the death of a loved one and hence lessen the pain. As much as a terminal illnesses is painful to the patient, it is equally painful to the family members and friends to watch a loved one in pain. Euthanasia as a means to guarantee safer methods of donating vital organs Another reason euthanasia ought to be encouraged is in relation to organ donation. There are many health problems today that require organ transplants for a patient to lead a normal healthy life. A good example is a patient suffering from kidney failure. Smith brings forward the fact that there is a relationship between managing the time and place where death occurs and successful harvesting of vital organs (183). A slow and painful death may compromise on the quality of vital human organs in terms of health. A terminally ill patient can therefore plan his or death through euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide so that his or her vital organs can be harvested and used to save other peoples lives. It is however important to remember that, a patient must give consent for his vital organs to be harvested or removed and transplanted to the bodies of other needy patients. A timely death through euthanasia or physician assisted suicide can also allow medical practitioners to harvest the vital organs and store them for later use. There are people who could save other peoples lives but are prevented by policies that do not allow euthanasia. Therefore, body organs that could bring a new lease of life to another person are wasted unnecessarily. This argument shows that euthanasia has an array of benefits to the society and hence ought to be encouraged. Euthanasia can decrease health insurance premiums Hyman notes that "Many life-threatening procedures for terminally ill patients could cost more than their benefits to patients" (366). Apart from wasting peoples resources as mentioned earlier, caring for terminally ill patients is very expensive to healthcare providers and insurance companies and thus could lead to an increase in healthcare insurance premiums (Hyman 366). Many people in the world today are unable to afford health insurance due to high premiums. Similarly, uninsured individuals are many times unable to access healthcare facilities due to the high costs of healthcare. In cases where caring for a terminally ill patient cannot be of benefit, using resources for such care could be termed as wastage and could be used to save the lives that can be saved especially among the poor. If euthanasia is encouraged, and made legal for that matter, then a lot of resources could be saved and be used to cover for the costs incurred through caring for the uninsured and the less privileged individual within the society. Euthanasia can lower nurse-to-patient ratio The nursing profession has been grappling with insufficient number of nurses handling the ever increasing number of patients (Feldstein 446). There are many diseases contributed by sedentary lifestyles observed in many urban areas. Due to globalization, there has been increased access to cheap foods particularly fast foods and other foods rich in fats and sugars. This has elevated the risk and incidences of lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and heart diseases. Therefore, the insufficient number of nurses and other medical practitioners is making it harder for patients to benefit from quality care. The fact that terminally ill patients require constant care makes this problem worse. Caring for these individuals lessens the time spend by nurses and physicians in caring for other individuals in need of care or treatment. An argument can therefore arise whether it is practical and justified to care for a terminally ill patient whose condition is untreatable at the expense of addressing other health problems that are treatable. This is to mean that encouraging euthanasia would increase the time spent by the medical personnel in addressing treatable medical conditions and therefore save many lives. Encouraging euthanasia would also reduce the nurse to patient ratio and thus help in eliminating medical errors and therefore improve the quality of care (Feldstein 446). Euthanasia as a basis for formulation of policies It is also arguable that encouraging euthanasia would help in crafting or formulation of policies that could further protect the value of human life (Madden 43). This is in regard to the fact that legalizing and encouraging euthanasia would necessitate the creation of rules and guidelines to prevent physicians and other medical practitioners involved in ending the life of the patient from abusing this law. Denying people the right to determine their own lives could also lead to an increase in suicides. For patients with untreatable medical conditions who want to die rather that suffer in pain, suicide cases would increase hence denying them the right for a dignified death. It would be advisable to create benchmarks dictating circumstances under which euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is permissible. In doing so, family members would be spared the anguish and pain associated with the death of a family member through suicide. Sickening alternatives to euthanasia Euthanasia should also be encouraged as the alternatives to it are sickening (Bryant 431). It is not uncommon today to find people connected to life-support machines for long periods of time and eventually die. Debates arise in such cases whether it is for the benefit of the patient to remain connected in machines despite clear evidence that the patient has no hope of leading a normal life again. In cases where medications for a terminal illness have life-threatening side effects, it would also be justifiable to allow the patient to die a dignified life free of anguish and pain. Some people may opt to die rather than witness their bodies become emaciated due to drugs side effects. Therefore, denying them the right to choose to end their pain is tantamount to denial of their constitutional rights or justice. Conclusion Euthanasia has a lot of benefits and hence ought to be legalized and subsequently encouraged. Human beings ought to have the right to determine their own lives. Caring for terminally ill patients is very expensive and thus drains the family financially. Additionally, the carer also becomes a burden to other family members as he or she cannot be productive as much of his or her time is spent caring for the terminally ill individual. Some medical conditions are very painful and hence the choice to end suffering should be left to the patient. Euthanasia could also make easier for terminally ill patients to donate their vital organs. Encouraging terminally ill patients to euthanize could also increase the time spend by nurses caring for other patients with treatable medical conditions. Additionally, encouraging euthanasia could also hearten the creation of policies that could safeguard and protect the value of human life. Works cited Hallmark, Peter. "Death with Dignity." Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (2002): 255-257. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Bryant, Clinton D. Handbook of Death and Dying. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, 2003. Print. Feldstein, Paul. Health Care Economics. Clifton Park: Engage, 2011. Print. Herring, Jonathan. Medical Law and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print. Himchak, Maureen. "A Social Justice Value Approach Regarding Physician-Assisted Sluiced and Euthanasia Among the Elderly." Journal of Social Work and Ethics 8.1 (2011): 1- 14. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Hyman, David. Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2013. Print. Keown, John. Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print. Kingsbury, Kleen. "New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia." Time Magazine. 16 May. 2008: A4. Time Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Kristjanson, Linda J, and Aoum Samar. "Palliative Care for Families: Remembering the Hidden Patients." The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 49.6 (2004): 359-365. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Madden, Dierdre. Medicine, Ethics and the Law in Ireland. West Sussex: Bloomsbury Professional, 2011. Print. Miller, Daniel. "My life is miserable, demeaning and undignified says locked-in syndrome sufferer as he asks high court judges to give him the right to die." Mail Online. 19 June. 2012: A4. Daily Mail Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Smith, Wesley J. Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America. Montgomery: Encounter Books, 2013. Print. Read More