The Mysteries Surrounding Life and Death - Essay Example

Assisted Suicide Assisted Suicide Assisted suicide is getting popular in most parts of the world even though it is highly controversial. Some people argue that assisted suicide is a wrong concept both ethically and medically. In their opinion, taking the life of a person is a crime under any circumstances. Even after immense advancements in medical science, still we are unable to create an artificial life form in laboratory setup. In other words, the mysteries surrounding life is still remain unresolved. Moreover, according to medical ethics; the primary duty of healthcare professionals is to assist patients in getting rid of their diseases. In other words, medical profession is intended for saving life rather than destroying it. On the other hand, there are many people who believe that assisted suicide should be allowed legally in order to avoid the pain, agony and discomfort of the patients in no hope conditions. In their opinion, nobody wants to sustain their lives in miserable conditions, if the hope for a survival is completely out of question. Under such circumstances, it is better to assist those people in finishing their lives rather than forcing them to suffer the pain and agony further. In this paper I argue in favour of assisted suicide after analysing both the sides of the issue. Arguments against assisted suicide The major argument against assisted suicide is with respect to the ethical issues involved in it. “Many faith groups within Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religions believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away” (Info: Ethical aspects of PAS, n. d.). Religions argue that life is the blessing of God and man has no authority over it. God has created human life on earth for certain missions. He takes the life back only after the completion of the mission assigned to each person. Disallowing God to complete his missions is unethical according to religions. Religions also argue that a life is waiting for every human after his death and in order to prepare for that life, God has given miseries to human in his present life. It is the duty of the human to go through all these mysteries in order to claim an eternal life after death. Religions believe that assisted suicide will prevent a person from attaining eternal life or salvation. Another argument raised by critics of assisted suicide is based on the importance of human life on earth. Even though, human succeeded in collecting information about outer universe or planets, still his knowledge about this universe is extremely limited. Science does not have any idea about whether life persists in other planets or not. In other words, earth is the only planet in which life exists as per the evidences we have until now. Thus, life becomes most precious thing in this universe. Since human has superior intellectual power, human life seems to be the most important one among other life forms and it should not be destroyed under any circumstances. The chemistry of life is still unknown to science even though we are living in a most advanced era at present. Human succeeded in unveiling many mysteries; however, the secret behind life is still uncatchable to them. Once the life is being destroyed, nobody can give it back to a person. In short, human life is the most important thing in this universe and it should not be destroyed, according to the arguments of critics of assisted suicide. The third argument against assisted suicide is related to philosophy. Many of the prominent philosophers like Immanuel Kant, John Locke etc were argued against the assisted suicide in one way or other. Locke argued that life, like liberty, represents an inalienable right, which cannot be taken from, or given away by, an individual. For Kant, suicide was a paradigmatic example of an action that violates moral responsibility. Kant believed that the proper end of rational beings requires self-preservation, and that suicide would therefore be inconsistent with the fundamental value of human life (Chapter 5: The Ethical Debate, 2001, p.81). Locke argued that right to leave is a natural right and it should not be taken away even in critical circumstances. In his opinion, nobody has come to this world at their will and therefore nobody has the moral right to finish their lives at their will. In other words, life and death are controlled by some other entity and human does not have any authority over these issues. Immanuel Kant also put forward similar arguments. In his opinion, the fundamental value of life is much more than what an ordinary person thinks and therefore it should be preserved as much as possible. Since life is an irreversible process, human should never take anything granted while taking decisions to end their lives. No human knows from where he comes and where he goes after death. Moreover, nobody knows whether a life after death is possible or not. Under such circumstances, it is better to sustain the life as much as possible rather than finishing it midway through the life span. Another reason cited against assisted suicide s with respect to the ability of the person who demands assisted suicide, to take rational decisions. Drickamer et al (2004) have pointed out that “at the time when a patient requests physician-assisted suicide, the patient may be experiencing isolation, guilt, or low self-worth as a result of being a burden to others and anger or other emotions may limit the patients acceptance of alternatives” (Drickamer et al, 2004). In many cases, people demands assisted because of their momentary lapse of control over emotions. Patients in critical conditions often require assistance from others. Moreover, they may suffer severe pain and discomfort as a result of their chronic disease. Under such circumstances, they may ask for assisted suicide in order to get rid of the pain and agony and also to avoid the inconvenience his diseases caused to others like relatives and friends. In other words, a person who is critical condition may not have the ability to take sound decisions. Most of his decisions could be emotionally driven rather than logically driven. Critics believe that the emotionally driven decisions should not be taken as serious while deciding the fate of a person. Arguments in favour of assisted suicide Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia should be a right granted to all citizens who are suffering from a degenerative, painful, or fatal condition that would cause them to be unable to enjoy to enjoy their lives as healthy people do. Although there are certainly several debates against this viewpoint on assisted suicide, it is not up to ethicists to make decisions that infringe upon the rights of the ill and infirm. As it stands, there is a solid argument in favour of human euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. As such, it should be recognized that “patients have a right to make their own decisions to preserve free choice and human dignity: this right includes the right to choose assisted suicide” (The Positive Side of Assisted Suicide: An Argument in Favor of Allowing Physicians Euthanasia Capabilities, 2011) “Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that all persons have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others” (Andre & Velasquez, n. d). Supporters of assisted suicide believe that the autonomy of a person should be respected while taking decisions about assisted suicide. Ultimately, the sole authority over one’s life is rested upon the person himself. Moreover, it is difficult for a person in critical condition to convey his pain and agony to others. In other words, others may not get a proper idea about the depth of the pain and discomfort facing by a patient in chronic condition. The right to accept death with dignity is a basic right just like the right to live. Nobody can force a person to sacrifice e his basic rights to live and right to die when in critical conditions. The life of a person in normal circumstances and in critical circumstances cannot be equated. Denial of opportunity to accept death when happens to be under no hope conditions, is the violation of personal rights such as liberty, freedom etc. Normal suicide and assisted suicide are entirely different. Assisted suicide is performed only when a person is under no hope conditions and therefore it will provide less discomfort to others compared to normal suicide. “Though the society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end (Braddock, 2008). Society always likes to have healthy people. Healthy people will always be an asset to the society since they are contributing to the development of society in one way or other. On the other hand, unhealthy people are always a burden to the society since they consume something from the society to sustain their lives. For example, even beloved people sometimes show reluctance in treating a patient is he is in a no hope condition. The expenditure made for sustaining a life under no hope condition is a non-productive expenditure for the society. My views about assisted suicide After careful analysis of the arguments in favour and against assisted suicide, I do believe that assisted suicide should be allowed to help a patient in no hope condition. The principles of medical ethics should be modified slightly to accommodate assisted suicide also as part of medical profession. Instead of saving the lives of patients, the aim of medical profession should be modified to help the patients in getting rid of their pain and agony. Such a broad definition will allow healthcare professionals while taking decisions about assisted suicide. The big question here is this: is my death mine and mine alone? In an entirely secular, entirely individualistic society, the answer must be yes. In a religious society or one with a strong sense of communal values, the answer must be no, because then an individual is partly answerable to something bigger than himself (Appleyard, 2009). The arguments of religions with respect to assisted suicide seem to be irrelevant. The life after death is only a belief rather than a fact. It is illogical to ask a person to continue in his pathetic condition for getting an imaginary eternal life after his death. As per the evidences gathered by science until now, life after death is only an imaginary concept. It is a fact that human life is the most important thing in this world; however, when it happens to be in no hope condition, this precious thing may become a burden. The right to accept death in dignity should be considered as a basic or natural right and assisted suicide should be allowed to keep that basic right intact. Different philosophers expressed different views with respect to assisted suicide. It is illogical to consider only the arguments of only some of them while deciding about assisted suicide. Most of the philosophical principles were formulated during ancient times. These principles need modifications in the modern era in order to make it more acceptable to human beings. The expenditure made for sustaining the life of a person in no hope condition will go in the unproductive sector and the society will never develop properly if it fails to reduce the expenditure on unproductive sectors. Conclusions To conclude, the arguments in favour and against assisted suicide may continue till science unveils the mysteries surrounding life and death. After careful analysis of arguments in favour and against assisted suicide, it seems that assisted suicide will be beneficial not only to the person, but also to the family members and the society. It is cruel to ask a person to suffer pain and agony for an uncertain life after death. The right to accept death with dignity is a basic right and under no circumstances, it should not be violated. References 1. Appleyard B. (2009). Assisted suicide: Whose life is it anyway?. The Sunday Times. August 2, 2009. Retrieved from http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6736038.ece 2. Andre C and Velasquez M (n. d), Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong? Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/suicide.html 3. Braddock C H. (2008), Physician-Assisted Suicide, Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pas.html 4. Chapter 5: The Ethical Debate, (2001), New York State Department of health. Retrieved from http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/consumer/patient/chap5.htm 5. Drickamer M A. MD; Lee M A., MD; and Ganzini L, MD (2004) Practical Issues in Physician-Assisted Suicide, Retrieved from http://www.annals.org/content/126/2/146.full 6. Info: Ethical aspects of PAS, (n. d.), Retrieved from http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth7.htm 7. Suicide and Ethical Aspects Assisted Suicide - The public debate over physician- assisted suicide, (2010), Retrieved from http://medicine.jrank.org/pages/1705/Suicide-Assisted-Suicide-Ethical-Aspects.html 8. The Positive Side of Assisted Suicide : An Argument in Favor of Allowing Physicians Euthanasia Capabilities. Retrieved from http://www.articlemyriad.com/4.htm Read More