Euthanasia or mercy killing - Essay Example

?Euthanasia Introduction Euthanasia is a Greek word meaning “mercy killing”. Its usage depends on the context in which it occurs. There is no conventional way of defining the term. Hence, there are three levels of understanding of euthanasia: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient makes a sole decision about the act, non voluntary euthanasia is done by those patients, though capable of requesting for it are not given the chance to do so while involuntary euthanasia is done against the will of the patient irrespective of their capacity to make the decision. However, if the medical practitioner suggests and the patient agrees, it will be termed as voluntary euthanasia. All the definitions share common characteristics in that they all involve shortening the life of a patient with the belief that it’s better if he/she is dead. Then the act is carried out by doctors and not relatives (Keown 9). Activists of the ordeal suggest that doctors should be given the mandate to do it by not just relieving the pain but by killing the patient in particular circumstances. It is believed that termination of the patient’s life will relieve the relatives, close friends or loved ones the burden and the expenses, as well as the time they spend in taking care of the sick. The key word here is to reduce suffering for the patient (Keown 11). According to John Hardwig, there is always a duty to die. There are circumstances that increase the likelihood of the duty to die; one’s illness, history and age. He gives several considerations that clarify the definition of the duty to die. First, if prolonging life will pose more burdens to relatives including loss jobs, financial challenges and emotional stress to the caregivers, there is a very high degree of the likelihood to die. Age increases the likelihood since, as we advance in age, our contribution to the society decreases. The goals that we had set in life cannot al be achieved. Again, there is a duty to die when we have lived to our full desires, accomplishing all what we have been yearning for in life and there is nothing more left (Hardwig 14). On the contrary, if people have lived a very poor and difficult life, they have not enjoyed a satisfactory share of what life has to offer, especially as a result of their own flaws, they have a duty to die. If other people especially family members have greatly contributed towards one’s success, and one has not retaliated to improve their lives, you have a duty to die. When one becomes incapacitated to the extent that he/she cannot maintain the social fabric that has been holding the relationship together, he has a duty to die. For instance, if he has been making people happy by singing and he cannot sing any more due to illness or other factors, the relationship between him and the acquaintances is likely to weaken. In addition, in the event of living a reckless lifestyle such that nothing is saved for future medication or old age, one has the duty to die. It is irresponsible to be less concerned with one’s owns health only to rely on others when the disaster hits (Hardwig 12). Less likelihoods of the duty to die occurs when one can courageously cope with their own sicknesses or incapacitated condition rendering the patient less time, energy and resources in care giving. On the same note, some diseases will have to cost the caregivers despite the courage and strength the patient shows in trying to withstand the situation. When relatives or family members have to suffer or be very grieved because of the support you have been offering to their lives both material and moral, there is less likelihood on the duty to die. Hardwig, again, argues that the duty to die is very real and possible and wonders the bioethics dismissal of the claim. It is the individualistic fallacies that drive us to think that we have no duty to die. Human beings are held together by kinship ties and the decisions we make impacts others. We share houses, finances, successes, as well as failures, the togetherness is what spices life so we wouldn’t want to be alone in times of sickness and old age (Hardwig 16). Opposition As defined earlier, the ultimate goal of euthanasia is an act that is intended to shorten the patient’s life medically with the aim of relieving his suffering. One such direct measure is lethal injection that is done on good faith. Biblically, life is sacred and should not be terminated as this violates the sixth commandment of not committing murder. Thus, active intentional killing by doctors is tantamount to any other murder offence. Also, passive euthanasia such as disconnecting the life support machines in the patients’ wards is murder. Reducing pain is logical and allowed since it’s not intended to shorten but lengthen the patient’s life (Keown 16). I totally disagree with Hardwig that there should be a duty to die under any circumstances, be it senile age, failure to contribute, sacrifice for others benefit, or incompetence. Everyone wants to live up to his desires, to achieve his goals, duties, obligations and to see his descendants. Those whom we cared for when we were strong should not feel the burden of caring for us in our deathbeds. Thus, the mention of the duty to die is so illogical, threatening and morally unacceptable. The intention of terminating life is morally impermissible, whether it is caused by action or inaction. If a person develops a disease like polio, the parents should be ready to pay for the medication to save his life. By refusing to do so, the patient will die because it was their failure to take him for vaccination when he was a child. This is a decision of inaction that is considered immoral. It’s not that the termination of life was sought, planned or chosen but the decision of inaction is deadly (Peete 1). In addition, there is a difference between an act and an intention. People’s characters can be affected by intention of our acts which eventually shape our personality. For instance, visiting a sick person to encourage him with the aim of getting something in return is bad. Yet again, showing concern for a very sick old folk just because one wants to be considered in the old person’s will is bad. The action should be legitimate. Conclusion The issue of euthanasia will continue to elicit widespread debate owing to its implications on religious, moral and ethical considerations. John Hardwig raises a fundamental yet weighty debate by claiming that people have a duty to die in spite of their common objection to such an idea. While it is true that sickness and old age may cause a lot of suffering to a person’s loved ones, the idea of one accepting the duty to die remains farfetched. This is so considering that the sanctity of life must be respected. Inaction is deemed an action because there are repercussions. Irrespective of the intention, the performance of euthanasia still kills the patient. Letting a person die is morally impermissible. Life is meaningful, everyone fears death for various reasons and that is the reason for using life-prolonging treatment. God created human beings to take care of the earth and everything in it and to reproduce. All human beings are equal before Him and, therefore, no one has the right to terminate another’s life. Works Cited Hardwig, John. Is there A Duty To Die. Hastings Center Report. University of Tennessee 27, No. 2 pp 34-42. 1997. Print. Also available at http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/dutydie.htm Keown, John. Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalization. Cambridge University Press 2002. Print. Peete, Josh. The Pros and Cons of Moral Permissibility of Euthanasia. 2002. Print. Read More