Contemporary ethical issues of Euthanasia - Research Paper Example

? Contemporary ethical issues of euthanasia, Unit Introduction By definition Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending life in order to relieve suffering and pain of a human being. It can either be voluntary or non-voluntary. Some argue that euthanasia is good death or when a physician decides to provide assistant to the patient by providing medication to gently end his life. However, one should only practice euthanasia if there is a legal consent to do so. Intentionally, killing a patient is illegal and is considered to as murder. Euthanasia focuses on a number of things (Rachels, 2005). According to Young, (2010), euthanasia presents four main opinions. The first one is the fact that people have the right to self-will power meaning that they have to be permitted to decide their own destiny. Secondly, assisting a patient to die might be a better way of choice than allowing him to suffer. Additionally, the difference between passive is allowed but while active euthanasia has a double effect and lastly, allowing euthanasia does not necessarily lead to undesirable consequences. In this regard, the overall focus of this essay is to expound on the contemporary ethical issues of euthanasia, reflecting how the study of Abrahamic religions and their approaches to values and decision-making has influenced my thinking. Abrahamic religion teaches us that God is the only person who can take life away. Meaning that God is the one who owns you and it is up to him to decide when you are going to die. Christians have no option than to painfully prolong their life until death occurs naturally. If the patient is a Christian, then his religion teaches him that he should fear God and should not consider Euthanasia as an option. The religion also teaches that life is a gift from God and therefore sustaining and terminating it is under his control. ‘Christians believe that life is more that the existence of biology and a human being has a soul t within his body and therefore, death releases his soul to eternal destiny (Michael, 2007). In Exodus 20: 13 and 1 John 3:15, they explain that life is by God’s choice and therefore, the cessation of life is also by his design. According to these scriptures we believe that it is morally wrong to take the life of another human being. However, the society is becoming more perverse in relation to the sacredness of life. With abortion being legalized, the ensuing view of life is also reaching at its low level, where by, the right to die option has come up, as well as dying with pride and other models dealing with value and quality of life are slowly dominating the thinking of our humanity (Young, 2010). One debatable concept that has come is euthanasia, deliberately ending the life of an individual who is suffering from incurable or painful disease. The request for euthanasia can either be voluntary or non-voluntary. The person responsible for the patient can also make a decision on behalf of the patient. This is morally unacceptable and secondly it is murder. Passive euthanasia or withholding the life of a new born through starvation or similarly withholding the life of an extremely ill patient is also referred to as euthanasia (Rachels, 2005). From the acceptable medical related euthanasia, it is one of the step to eliminate the financial or social burden from individuals who are responsible for the terminally ill patient, such death is short of murder and should therefore, not be accepted in a society. Additionally, there are social implications of euthanasia for example, the elderly, sick, handicapped and above all the life in its own way. The study of Abrahamic religions explains that the disposition of every life is more than sacred and cannot be entrusted to the control of human beings. It should be left in the hands of the almighty, putting in mind that God is the doer of all things (Young, 2010). 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 state that human beings are the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in every human being, and has God and not their own. We are bought at a price and therefore, we should all glorify God in both our bodies and spirit, which belong to God. In deed, the right to die is an ethical issue that has come up from medical technology that is up to date. Nowadays the life of a human being can be maintained for years and months if the brain ceases to function. The question is for how long the doctors can keep the physical body even if the person has already died. The religion best answers this question, in terms of God is the only giver and sustainer of life and therefore, he is the only one who can take it away, leaving euthanasia out of question (Baruch, 1995). Michael (2007) claims that the right to die is different from euthanasia; meaning that it is not the right to a death which is free from pain, as well as it is not the right to commit suicide. It is mostly the right to die a natural death incase the person is terminally ill and the doctor has already determined that the patient cannot recover. If he does not want to be placed in life supporting machines which disrupts the existence of natural death and may also prolong the death. For such a person, his will to live may prove helpful. We are all treated by physicians whom we do not know very well and therefore, the living will is written when a patient becomes hopeless to help protect the physician in making decisions. Rachels (2005) claims that Christians do not need the living will. Because it is a critical issue that need much consideration ahead of time. It is important for a person to sign his own statement instead of being signed for by his relative or guardian. It is normal for a person who is terminally ill to think that God wants him or her to suffer before dying, but religion reminds him that suffering is not a punishment from God as He does not reward or punish people until after the next life. Therefore, no one should take away another person’s life as well as his own. The Abrahamic religion has helped shape our values as well as decision-making which has influenced our thinking in terms of issues like, obviously, Euthanasia, in which it teaches us that taking our own life as well as the other is a sin. This has shaped our way of life, because Christians tend to respect this concept. Additionally, we also fear taking a person’s life because of such teachings. As a result, we respect and value each other’s life. Even though abortion is considered legal, Christians do not practice it because the Abrahamic teachings which warns against killing of innocent lives such as abortion. It is considered scripturally unlawful thus explaining that taking a human life is considered as murder. It does not matter if the human life is that of an infant, embryo or fetus or other members of the society. This is because; it violates the sanctity of a human life, in addition to the concept of all lives are conceived in God’s image (Baruch, 1995). Conclusion In summary, life begins at conception and not after one hundred days later. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending life in order to relieve suffering and pain of a human being. People have the right to self-willpower meaning that they should be allowed to choose their own destiny; secondly, assisting a patient to die might be a better way of choice than allowing him to suffer. However, contemporary ethical issues of euthanasia, reflecting the study of Abrahamic religions, states that human beings are the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in every human being, and is God’s and not their own. The religion also teaches that life is a gift from God and therefore sustaining and terminating it is under his control. ‘Christians believe that life is more than the existence of biology and a human being has a soul t within his body and therefore, death releases his soul to eternal destiny. Therefore, according to Abrahamic religion euthanasia is scripturally unlawful. References Brody, Baruch (1995). "Voluntary Euthanasia and the Law". In Kohl, Marvin. Beneficient Euthanasia. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. Rachels J(2005),Active and passive Euthanasia. N. Engl. J. Med. Stolberg, Michael (2007). "Active Euthanasia in Pre-Modern Society, Learned Debates and Popular Practices". William A. Young, (2010), The World’s Religions: Worldviews and Contemporary Issues, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Read More