Argument against Euthanasia - Essay Example

Instructor

Abstract

The main aim of the work is to discuss the argument against the act of euthanasia where the act simply means a deliberate action associated with the intention of ending one’s life due to unstoppable, persistent and intractable suffering the patient is subjected to. The paper analyzes and explores the arguments that do not actually support the act of euthanasia because it is seen as one form of assisted suicide. However, there are some unbearable conditions that do allow the patient to have the hope of getting well and therefore euthanasia can only be accepted in the cases of the last resort but not an alternative manner of palliative care.

However, the act is much essential subject since its variation has recently been legalized in some places in United States of America and Quebec. Being that it is a medical help to die is not considered as an act of euthanasia neither is it considered as an assisted suicide. When a patient is in a state of having a valid reason to die, then it is automatic that you do not have full mental abilities.

In going against the act, a question that rises is that; should the society keep an impaired individual who has a miserable life and is subjected to a continuous suffering than having his or her own pleasure from deciding to take his or her own life? In conclusion, it is not appropriate for the society to deny a person who is subjected to severe suffering to die with a reason of his or her own handicap.

Keywords: arguments against euthanasia, Euthanasia, medical arguments and assisted suicide

Argument against Euthanasia

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a direct suicide or form of murder to either animal or the human beings due to their conditions. The purpose of the act is to relieve either the person or the animals from suffering from severe pain, to free up from the medical finance, for the freedom of choice and to relieve one who suffers from a low quality of life. Like Washington DC, in United States, the act is legalized even in other states such as Colorado where the act is not a big deal to the patients who have no hopes of living again. The famous cases where the act was allowed was when the act was revived within the period of 1960s and 1970s under the rubric of right to die where the physicians helped in the death of liberal bioethics. Euthanasia is a controversial issue because, according to the British laws, it does not agree with the passive act in a condition that treatment is withdrawn. Most of the doctors try their best to relieve their patients from pain because killing is always against their mission, but the condition of their patients may force them to administer the act. Being that Euthanasia is one of the ways of shortening one’s life yet there might be other options for saving one from death. I do not support the act because it is one form of murder, it has a different conversion, it is a way of rejecting and undermining the value of human life, it has other options, it results to results to suicide contagion, it violates the international code, and it is against the doctor’s aim and also against the religious norms.

Arguing against the Act

To assert a position for the argument against, it is relevant to consider the act as a form of murder however many people take it for granted so that it relieves them from pain. The act of euthanasia is an inappropriate action to be put forward by the doctors who can work way and implement the better knowledge they have to cure any pain or disease. The better work of the physician may be admired by many people, however to some point; it should be a surprise that the use of act has claimed a life of the patient instead of using other chemicals to shorten one’s life. Euthanasia becomes form of murder to the patients but according to the pain they undergo, they accept to die before their time. Accepting the act by the doctors is one way of undermining the strength of the doctors who might be having other means of overcoming the hard situations their patients might be going through so I do not agree with the act.

Voluntary euthanasia can become convenient to the patient because psychological and emotional pressure may overpower the individuals who do not depend on others. What makes other diseases to be much problematic is the nature of the illness. Doctors use euthanasia majorly in the cases of unbearable pain that the patient suffers in his life (Ten, & Welie, 2014). They can reason that, for the patients to be dragged into a non-pain state, they are required to be euthanatized from such a severe state, the reason being that it is not dignified. A large number of people have been polled on the question of euthanasia, and it appears that diseases were an important factor in their decision to solve than to kill however much one suffers much pain.

Assisted Suicide

The person who administers a dose of medication that is regarded to be lethal into the body where taking the life of one seems to look in different conversion. The primary concern is concentrated on the implications of increasing the assisted suicide to the free disabled and ill people. It is understandable for the doctors to initiate the action to some patients who are in extreme suffering from painful, terminal and debilitating illness since the only option is a preferred death to life (Orentlicher, 2012). However, most of the doctors strive to save their patients but in a situation where they use some poisonous substance shows that there is no other ways to help the patient. No doctor is allowed to take such an action without proper consultation with the patients and the close loved ones after which when they both agree, they eventually take the actions into their hands

Arguing against the context, accepting the act by the doctors seems to reject the value and importance of human life since it is a way of taking an individual’s life to a circumstance like self-defense. For defense, when one is killed the other life is saved but with the act of euthanasia, nobody’s life gates to be kept at the circumstance. When the doctors try their best to relieve one from pain or suffering, and he/ she is defeated, it forces them to go against their wishes that are associated with their aims to enact the euthanasia to the patient (Sjöstrand, Helgesson, Eriksson, & Juth, 2013). Many opponents seem to support the position of allowing euthanasia but the credibility of the research is questionable because it is not factual since there are some ways the severe illness can be overcome instead of killing.

Alternatives for the Act

There are very many alternative means of treating the disease, these are hospices and palliative, and therefore, we need not use euthanasia as a way to assist the patients. Other medical care people and the physicians are discouraged from involving in direct cause of death of a patient however much it becomes convenient for the doctor to solve the patient's life. Being the point is that, the most unbearable illness like the mental disorder may be treated by other means that would save the life of the patient thus, euthanasia may be not an appropriate way to solve the situation. Some research that has been carried out has been generating the alternatives of helping some severe situation thus the act of euthanasia may be not appropriate.

Doctor’s thought

However, some doctors agree to concede for the objection by considering the value of the situation, which is either time consuming or the cost of managing and controlling the situation and therefore proposes for the euthanasia. Although, some critics have pointed out, X does follow the tried-and-true formula of Y. That is to mean all the methods of enabling one to get free from suffering, is by trying all the available options that might be used to relieve them from suffering (Keown, 2002). Before the doctor agrees to euthanasia a patient, he is first allowed to try by all means to apply the best knowledge they have, and if defeated, he or she must admit being unable to overcome the situation, therefore, suggest an option which should coincide with the expectations of the patients and his loved ones.

Reasons for being against the act

The argument against euthanasia is that it results to suicide contagion mostly in a situation when it is portrayed by the media as a means assisting persons to kill themselves. It becomes dangerous to the society because it represents to the community that, the only way to solve the life’s problem is by the use of euthanasia. On the other hand, legalizing euthanasia may make the action to become non-voluntary and therefore in a situation that the doctors are unable to help some severe conditions, they may decide the use of some unsafe injections to end the life of their patients.

When the euthanasia becomes non-voluntary, financial consideration may be one of the doctor’s means to enable the act to be implemented. Since the patient is running short of finance, some doctors may feel that they are not gaining anymore on the patient and therefore might not concentrate on curing the patient (Sjöstrand, Helgesson, Eriksson, & Juth, 2013). The financial matter may be one of the greatest burdens that may make one to choose death instead of being treated further. For the abolishment of the act, more time should be given to the doctor to adjust on his areas of weakness to try as much as possible to save the life of their patients. Considering financial status of the patients, both time and life are important to both the doctor and the patient respectively.

Under the religious argument, human beings are seen to be the holy God’s creation, and therefore their life becomes so important before God (Have, & Welie, 2014). The death of a person is only decided by God and therefore ending the life of one to save him, or she will be considered a sinful act before the will of God. The argument of “slippery slope” puts it that, any community that allows for the voluntary euthanasia will lead to a consequence of both involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia thus changing the attitudes of the community.

Violation of International Code

In short, basing on the medical ethics stipulates that allowing for the act will eventually violate their international code. This is evident when the patient-doctor relationship is damaged by asking the doctor to forget their duty of preserving human life by ending their life following their critical conditions. The other idea is based on the alternative ways of saving the lives where the use of advanced mental health consideration and palliative care makes no reason for one to feel more intolerable even if it is mental or physical suffering or even both. It may be faithful to use the alternative ways to secure lives than to have only one option that may make life to be so unbearable for the patients by causing them to lose hope and develop an option of dying as the best way to be relieved from pain.