The Perspectives of Euthanasia - Essay Example

 Euthanasia Introduction The topic of euthanasia has been a contentious issue over the years with many people holding divergent views on the topic. As Boudreau & Somerville indicate, euthanasia refers to the killing of an individual deliberately, in the event that they continually suffer from terrible diseases and are suffering a great deal (2). It is in this context that mercy killing takes place, in an attempt to relieve the patients from excessive pain. Euthanasia as Boudreau & Somerville writes, may take place in two different ways (2). First, it takes place with the consent of the patients and the second option takes place when the clinicians decide to do very little to save the life of patient who is going through too much pain (Boudreau & Somerville 2-4). Either case, euthanasia refers to a deliberate move to end life as opposed to the natural way of allowing death to take place. This essay will focus on both sides of euthanasia. The essay will first look at the pros of euthanasia, then the cons and finally take a stand on which perspective holds more weight. Thesis statement Is euthanasia committing murder simply relieving patients from excessive pain and suffering? Does this conception have anything to do with morality or even legal issues? Euthanasia is acceptable In the present day society, it is evident that there are numerous forms of technologies that have made life easier. These technologies have made it easier for patients to lead a healthy lifestyle as they can access drugs and cure to many of their health issues (Boudreau & Somerville 4). A notable example is cancer patients who have gone through successful chemotherapies that help them battle the killer disease. With the number of deaths increasing from incurable diseases especially after doctors’ confirmation, it is evident that patients have to deal with their conditions. It is at this phase that the case of euthanasia comes in. If the patient cannot heal for instance after succumbing to deadly diseases such as cancer, or even Ebola, they have a choice to chose death. This automatically relives them the pain of dealing with their miserable conditions and have a quick rest. Euthanasia, in this case may be termed as acceptable. Euthanasia will also have relieved their families a lot of pain and distress of watching their loved one suffer continually. Secondly, as seen in the research done by Boudreau & Somerville, euthanasia relates to matters of personal liberty (7). All persons are given the freedom and the will to decide what is right and what is not acceptable for them. In the event that an individual is terminally ill and is going through terrible conditions, they are justified to make their own judgments that are seemingly workable for them. If euthanasia takes place in this context, it will have fulfilled the right of individuals to make their own decisions; thus, enjoy personal liberty (Boudreau & Somerville 7). The will to live, in this case is not baseless but takes place in the case of extreme conditions of a person. Since their conditions can be equated to death, the patients have the right to decide life or death. Euthanasia, in this context is indeed acceptable. Thirdly, Ankeny, et al. is of the opinion that euthanasia is the most appropriate form of palliative care (617). This results from the actuality that euthanasia involves compassion and focusing on the patient’s autonomy. Through euthanasia, as the author continues to write, the patients die with dignity as they make choices on their own (Ankeny, et al 620-621). The palliative care in this instance incorporates the end of life care that all patients require. Euthanasia is therefore, an accepted practice Since all persons will ultimately die, euthanasia needs not be viewed as murder per se, but a form of helping patients that are going harsh conditions to die early. Evidently, there is no reason for patients to keep suffering helplessly, and not lead a normal like other persons of the same nature and affiliations. Given that a greater part of these patients are almost inactive, it is only fair that they are allowed to rest early as opposed to being subjected to the extreme conditions. Euthanasia is for these reasons acceptable despite the numerous arguments on the cons of the “dignified” practice. Euthanasia is not at all acceptable On a religious point of view, euthanasia is completely unacceptable. As seen in the research conducted by Ankeny et al, a great percentage of religions in the world do not support this practice with the view that life must be held sacred and no person has the right to take life (616-21). In addition, arguing from a religious perspective, it is evident that no man has given life and in turn, no man is supposed to end life. Assisted suicide, in this context is not acceptable despite the conditions that a patient is undergoing. The givers of life are well conversant with the fact, and will take the respective lives at their own time. Secondly, on a legal perspective, euthanasia can be referred to as a type of homicide (Boudreau & Somerville 10). In a situation when the medical practitioners opt to withhold any kind of help that can contribute to helping the patients survive or live longer, they need to be subjected to punishment as they contribute to the death of an individual. Thirdly, euthanasia leads to the death of many innocent persons who not in a position to make decision on their own and have their relatives make the most important decision of life (Boudreau & Somerville 8). A remarkable instance is the case of the mentally ill persons who are not in sober minds to take crucial decisions in life. If their relives feel that this particular person is a huge burden on them, then they will take the option of euthanasia as soon as it comes their way. This is to mean that they will simply have taken advantage of their loved one for their own advantage and convenience. In line with this thought, it is warranted to argue that euthanasia costs the lives of many innocent people. If nothing is done, it is almost obvious that a lot of innocent people will continually be murdered. On another perspective, euthanasia is not acceptable as it allows for mandatory suffering especially when the medical practitioners decline offering the full medical attention to the patients (Boudreau & Somerville 8). This situation can be equated too when a hungry person is denied food on the account that they will not live for long. It is wrong to ignore the hope that such kinds of persons and that medical intervention must be given to them till the last day of their lives. Euthanasia can be indicated to be a gamble for individual life, which is extremely wrong. Lastly, euthanasia is a selfish motive on the side of the medical practitioners who focus on the costs of healthcare over the life of individuals. It would be interpreted from Boudreau & Somerville’s work that most medics hope to save cost of healthcare and will, therefore, not put much effort to save live of patients with adverse conditions (10). If euthanasia is prohibited the lives of many helpless and voiceless people will be saved. Conclusion From the essay, the points that do not advocate for euthanasia outdo the pros for euthanasia. Euthanasia is, therefore, not accepted whether costs of healthcare are to be considered or even the severity of the condition the patient is undergoing. Despite the pros persons for euthanasia continually advocating for legalization of this practice, it is only fair the lives of innocent people be spared from destruction in the hands of few people. Works Cited Ankeny, Rachel A., Clifford, Ross., Jordens, Christopher., Kerridge, Ian H & Benson, Rod. “Religious perspectives on withdrawal of treatment from patients with multiple organ failure”. MJA, 183.11/12 (2005): 616–621. Print. Boudreau, Donald & Somerville, Margaret. “Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives”. Medicolegal and Bioethics, 4 (2014):1–12. Print. Read More