Euthanasia and Hospice - Essay Example

Euthanasia If one takes a close look at the world, one will be able to see that it is full of dualities. Indeed, there is light and darkness, day and night; the list of pairs is almost endless. Nevertheless, there is one particular pair that has been the object of interest of the people since the dawn of the civilization: life and death. The attitude towards the circle of life has been changing. In the previous time death was largely seen and an inevitable end of life that people have no control over. However, at the present moment, with various technological advancements people can not only predict approximate time of death for terminally ill patients, but also give them an opportunity to die peacefully. This paper will dwell on two notions: euthanasia and hospice, analyzing different sides of them and articulating the position of Church. Speaking of euthanasia, one should point out that the very definition of it is quite debatable. In the United States of America there is a clear differentiation between euthanasia and assisted suicide, focusing on the fact that the former deals with a situation when other people take control over life and death of a patient. There is no wonder in the fact that out of fifty states, euthanasia is legal in only five: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and New Mexico (Segal and Gerdes 235). Nevertheless, the debate over the necessity to adopt this practice on a national level is still one of the most active. Considering the advantages that euthanasia features, the proponents of it often point out that fact that it may be regarded as the ultimate way to relief a person from pain that one suffers from for a considerable period of time. Indeed, sometimes the end of life may be so painful and uncomfortable that some people dream to end it. In addition to that, supporting life of people who are medically certified to die within a short period of time might be see as unfair towards people who might need the same medicine and have better chances of being cured. In other words, by choosing euthanasia a person gives other people hope for a new life – the best present one can have. Nevertheless, the backside of the above mentioned concept also should be taken into account. To begin with, it is often pointed out that euthanasia devalues life of a human being, suggesting that it turns it into an expense that the government is not able to afford. In addition to that, causing death, whether it is assisted suicide or murder is condemned by norms of the society which argues that euthanasia is against Ethical guidelines. Finally, the biggest problem with the above mentioned concept lies in the fact that such actions introduce changes in the way the society treats death. Moreover, it is able to contribute to emergence of “slippery slope” which might change the attitude towards value of a human life, possible undermining the fundamental principles of the social environment. It must be noted that the key question about euthanasia that is often raised within a broader discussion about this topic might be formulated in the following way: Why the contemporary people think that they are able to take the mystery of life and death in their hands? As it has been noted before, the modern development of medical science allows doctor to treat many conditions that were thought to be incurable and support life of a person under any circumstances. As a result, the power that the people have over their physical body has grown if compared to the previous times. However, death also involved a metaphysical concept of soul which makes the debate about acceptability of euthanasia rather difficult. One can surely be stated without any doubt: matters of life and death are still beyond full cognition of the mankind; so, it is generally advised not to make any categorical judgments. It is noted that approval of euthanasia differs according to race and gender, with men approving of it more than women. However, the percentage of people who are proponents of it still does not comprise the sufficient amount in order to make any significant change in the social environment. Having considered the position of the ordinary citizens, it may be suitable to turn to the position of the Church. Thus, Pope Saint John Paul II argues that the modern approach to this concept, claiming that it is humane and logical should be condemned since euthanasia is quite the opposite of being humane and logical (Rourke 151). The Christian Church preaches that the power to grant life and death is restricted to God exclusively which means that whenever people interfere with His power, they are committing a sin. In addition to that, euthanasia might be seen as a violation of the Sixth commandment: Thou shalt not kill. The next issue that this paper will address is the concept of hospice. One might note that this kind of facilities is rather popular in the United States: millions of people each year use the services of hospices; there have been a great number of legislation acts that manage provision of this kind of care and entitlement to it (Licht and Mahoney 47). On the whole, a hospice is often seen as place where people who will die in a short period of time are able to receive the sufficient amount of care and support; however, some hospices may withhold life extending treatment for various reasons. As for the advantages that hospices feature, one might say that they provide round the clock professional care that is able to make the last moments of one’s life more convenient. In addition to that, there will be no problem with availability of the necessary prescriptions or compliance with formality: hospices are able to maintain all of that. Finally, the staff is trained to provide specialized support to terminally ill patients, which makes them more helpful and comforting than the staff of regular hospitals. In other words, this whole facility was designed with a single goal: to satisfy the needs of the people who are terminally ill. However, there is also some criticism that is targeted at hospices. To begin with, it is often said that people who are experiencing their last moments of life may not benefit from being comforted by strangers. In other words, the presence of their family is what they really need, while hospices are not able to provide that, taking their patients away from homes. In addition to that, while putting a person in hospice, relatives put a stigma on this person, agreeing that that there is no hope and death is inevitable. This attitude is likely to contribute to emotional discomfort of a person who is placed in a hospice. Nevertheless, the biggest question that should be asked while considering this issue from a broader perspective is who is primarily responsible for setting up such facilities. On the other hand, this might be seen as a responsibility of the government, a logical continuation social care which supports people up to the very end of their lives. On the other hand, families of the terminally ill patients might be held responsible since it is their immediate problem and since it involves a considerable amount of financial funds, this financial burden should not be placed on the government. Moreover, it is also significant to determine the extent of involvement of religious organizations which are willing to provide this kind of care to the people. Speaking of the latter as well the position of the Church with regard to hospices, one should note that those who are involved in this activity are generally praised and as seen as true Christians, fulfilling obligation of showing compassion to the others (Rourke 200). In other words, while Christianity objects to euthanasia, it is in favor of hospices since they provide the right kind of treatment of the people who are suffering from pain or any other conditions. One would make no mistake suggesting that the Church is an active proponent of setting up more facilities of this kind since it have a positive influence not only the people who are being placed there, but also on the rest of the society, making it more humane and compassionate. Having examined all the evidence that was brought up in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following logical conclusion: both concepts of euthanasia and hospices deal with terminally ill patients; however, they propose completely different approaches towards helping them. Thus, while the former is more focused on the ultimate assistance, proving a person an escape from pain and suffering, the latter is features a softer approach which complies more with Christian Ethics than the previous one. Indeed, causing death, regardless of motives, is a rather controversial actions, while helping those in pain will always be seen an a positive act of compassion where all the parties who are involved will benefit. That is why there is no wonder in the fact that the Church supports hospices and disapproves of the idea of euthanasia. Works Cited Licht, Marcia E., and John J. Mahoney. The Hospice Choice: In Pursuit of a Peaceful Death. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998. Print. Rourke, Kevin D. Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teachings. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP, 2001. Print. Segal, Elizabeth A., and Karen E. Gerdes. An Introduction to the Profession of Social Work: Becoming a Change Agent. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson--Brooks/Cole, 2007. Print. Read More