Legalization of Euthanasia - Pros and Cons - Research Paper Example

Should Euthanasia be legalized? Introduction Euthanasia, also, known as mercy killing or physician assisted killing refers to the practice of deliberately ending the life of a terminally ill person so as to relieve him/her of pain and sufferings. Euthanasia is a controversial issue both in Ethics and law. The main issue in the moral and legal debate on Euthanasia is the question of whether or not Euthanasia violates individual’s inalienable right to life, and whether or not the denial of Euthanasia to the terminally sick patients who request for it is not a violation of individual right to make choices (right to self-determination). This paper presents an argument in support of the view that Euthanasia should be legalized. In giving reasons why Euthanasia should be legalized, I have analysed, critiqued, and exposed the reasoning flaws in the arguments advanced in opposition to legalization of Euthanasia. Body of the paper One main reason why Euthanasia should be legalized is that human beings have a right to self-determination, and for that reason they should be allowed to choose their own fate (ProCon.org, n.d.). This fact, therefore, means that denying euthanasia to the terminally sick patients who need it is a violation of their right to self-determination. The opponent of this view contend that euthanasia is an infringement on individual right to live. Although at a cursory glance Euthanasia may indeed seem as an infringement on the individual right to live, a critical look at Euthanasia vis-à-vis the individual right to self-determination shows that Euthanasia is not an infringement on individual right to life. This is because, first, Euthanasia is practiced on terminally ill patients who have almost no chance of surviving. For that reason, Euthanasia does not really shorten life because it is practised on the patients who are about to die-euthanasia is practised as an act of last resort where all other means of cure or relieving pain to enable the patient to have a quality life have failed so as to enable a person to have a dignified death (Tutu, 2014). Secondly, although, individuals have the right to life, the right to life does not, however, override individual right to self-determination in some circumstances. In a circumstance where a person is terminally ill and in excruciating pain, such a person has the right to decide to end their lives so as to relieve themselves of pain because even if he/she does end their lives, they will die in deep pain anyway. For these two reasons, therefore, euthanasia is not an infringement on individual right life. Hence, euthanasia should be legalized. The second main reason why Euthanasia should be legalized is that assisting a terminally ill patient to die is a better and a more humane choice than not assisting them (Wreen, 1988). In most instances, the people who undergo euthanasia are the people who are seriously sick, and the people who are unable to do even the basis of life like to move, to breathe, or even to think- these kinds of people have virtually nothing to enjoy in life and some of them have even lost the ability to self-determine. Assisting these kinds of terminally ill patients to die, therefore, is an act of mercy; choosing to help such patients to die is indeed a better and a more human choice than choosing not to assist them. One the arguments advanced in opposition to this view is the religious argument that life is given by God, and it is God only, therefore, who has the right to take back human life- in religion especially in Abrahamic religions life is viewed as being sacred. Also, it is argued that although a person may be terminally ill, we cannot be absolutely certain that the person will die; it is argued that it is possible for a person to be healed through miracle. For this reason, the anti-euthanasia argue that euthanasia is not an act of mercy. In response to the religious claim that life is sacred and that it is God only who has the right to take people’s lives, I would argue that, although it is God only who has the right to take away people’s lives, God, however, has given people the knowledge and the means to relieve pain. In an instance where one is terminally ill and death is imminent, assisting one to die with a view to relieving them pain should not be viewed as intentional taking away of one’s life. For this reason, therefore, euthanasia is not opposed to the religious view that life is sacred. On the claim that miracle is possible even in the seemingly hopeless case of a terminally sick person, I would respond that, although miracles do happen, miracles are, however, quite rare. For that reason, therefore, rather than denying the terminally ill patients euthanasia simply because they may get healed through a miracle, it is more reasonable to grant them their wishes. These facts show that the arguments advanced in opposition to the view that euthanasia is an act of mercy do not add up. Consequently, euthanasia should be legalized because it is indeed an act of mercy to the hopelessly terminally sick patients. The third reason why Euthanasia should be legalized is that Euthanasia is morally right. Although the anti-euthanasia proponents contend that euthanasia is immoral, I am of the view that euthanasia is morally right. This is because euthanasia does not violate any moral laws or moral norms. The anti-euthanasia proponents argue that euthanasia is immoral because human life should be preserved and protected (Somerville, 2014). Although it is true that life should be preserved and protected, it is also true that human beings have the right to self-determination. For this reason, therefore, since euthanasia is something that the terminally sick person willingly chooses with a view to relieving himself/herself pain, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with euthanasia. Euthanasia can only be morally wrong if it is done contrary to the wish of the terminally sick patient. For this reason, euthanasia should be legalized because it is morally right. The other main reason why Euthanasia should be legalized is that the legalization of Euthanasia does not actually open the floodgates of murder of innocent people under the guise of euthanasia. The anti-euthanasia contend that the legalization of euthanasia will lead to unacceptable negative consequences where unscrupulous doctors will be used assist people who are unhappy with life to commit suicide. This argument, however, is not supported by any scientific data. On contrary to this view, there is no significant increase in number of euthanasia in countries where euthanasia is legal. With proper government regulation, the instances of euthanasia being misused by unethical doctors will be quite minimal. For this reason, therefore, euthanasia should be legalized because it does not lead to unacceptable negative consequences. The other main reason why euthanasia should be legalized is that it makes economic sense. Giving medical care to the terminally sick patients is normally very expensive for both the government and the families of the terminally sick patients (Angel, 2012). Every year, for instance, the US government spends billions of dollars on the terminally sick patients. In other instances, some families of the terminally sick patients become bankrupt because of paying medical bills for their sick family members. The legalization of euthanasia, therefore, would significantly reduce these medical expenses. The anti-euthanasia people contend that legalizing of euthanasia on economic ground is wrong because human beings are more important than money. The opponents of Euthanasia go on to argue that money is meant to serve human beings and for that reason practising euthanasia so as to save money is morally unjustifiable. To this view, I would argue that, although indeed human beings are more important than money, it is unwise and imprudent, however, to spend money on things that are not helpful. For that reason, euthanasia should be legalized because it helps to prevent wasteful spending of money by bot the government and the families of the terminally sick patients. The other reason why euthanasia should be practised is that it is not contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath demands that doctors should always endeavour to save human life; the Hippocratic Oath demands that doctors should do no harm. A cursory glance of euthanasia in relation to Hippocratic Oath may seem contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. A critical look at Euthanasia vis-à-vis the Hippocratic Oath will reveal that euthanasia is not opposed to the Hippocratic Oath. This is because in assisting the terminally ill patient to die, the physician’s motive is not to have the patient dead, but to relieve the patient of his/her pain and sufferings. In assisting the terminally ill patient to end his/her life, the physician’s main concern is the well-being of his/he patient, but not to cause any harm to the patient. For this reason, therefore, euthanasia is not opposed to the Hippocratic Oath. Consequently, euthanasia should be legalized because it is in conformity with the Hippocratic Oath. Conclusion In conclusion, a critical review of the arguments advanced in opposition to the legalization euthanasia shows that none of the arguments opposed to euthanasia is based on true and factual basis. The main opposition to legalization of euthanasia mainly arises out of the myths that people have about euthanasia. For that reason, euthanasia should be legalized because there are many advantages of legalizing it, and the legalization of euthanasia is in conformity with the individual right to self-determination. Bibliography Angell, M. 2012. “May Doctors Help You to Die? New York Review Book. 11th October. ProCon. org. “Euthanasia Pros and Cons”. Web. Somerville, M.2014. “ Why Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide must Remain Legally Prohibited”. Globe and Mail. 14th February. Tutu, D. 2014. “ Desmond Tutu: A Dignified Death is our Right- I am in favour of assisted Dying”.The Guardian. 12th July. Wreen, M. 1988. “The definition of Euthanasia”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Vo. 48. No. 4. Read More