Ethical Considerations on the End of Life - Research Paper Example

2nd December, Euthanasia: Introduction: The topic of Euthanasia is very controversial and has conventionally caused much debate to arise all over the world. It is, indeed, a social taboo, yet it is deemed the only solution for considerable number of cases where no other way can be sorted to come out of the problem. Euthanasia is fundamentally an attempt to put an end to a person’s life irrespective of his/her will to die. This means that the person being killed is not seek prior permission from either because he/she is not mature enough to come up with a mature decision, or there are more demerits of his/her living than merits. In other cases, the person to be given euthanasia does not have the power to make a decision. This may happen, for example, if he/she is in a state of comma, or else, he/she is conscious but is fully paralyzed and can do nothing more than fed artificially. According to (Cavan and Dolan 12), euthanasia can be defined as, “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As this definition indicates, all possible measures are exercised in euthanasia to ensure that it takes the victim minimum pain and labor to die. It is obvious that the victim is given euthanasia by another person. Issues like euthanasia should be dealt with extreme care and delicacy particularly in the present age when people have grown much conscious about health and safety issues and ethics is considered a priority in every act an individual indulges in. “All forms of euthanasia, voluntary or in-voluntary, should be condemned until death is chosen for an individual by law because of his/her criminality.” Argument: It is useful to discuss certain types of euthanasia before making an in-depth analysis of the ethical consideration of this dilemma because people tend to argue for or against euthanasia without distinguishing between the various conventional forms of euthanasia. There are two fundamental types of euthanasia depending upon the presence or absence of will of the person being given euthanasia. These two types of euthanasia are called as the voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia (Dyck). It may seem surprising that there are people who tend to have euthanasia willingly, though it is true and there may be many reasons for that. Euthanasia which is given after seeking due permission from the victim is termed as the “assisted euthanasia”. It is often known as the “voluntary euthanasia”. However, “non-voluntary euthanasia” is largely recognized as “murder”. Non-voluntary euthanasia is similar to murder in that both do not involve the permission of victim. In fact, in a vast majority of cases, the victim is not even aware that he/she is soon going to be killed. Death is enforced upon an individual in the non-voluntary type of euthanasia. However, some people do not find the non-voluntary euthanasia in conflict with the rules of ethics, though, proponents of euthanasia might think that by disallowing euthanasia, the victim is being ignorant of the repercussions of his/her survival and is indeed, a threat to the community. Voluntary euthanasia is often considered eligible for legalization given the victim does not have an objection to the act. However, legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia is out of question till the time, the victim can be declared a potential source of threat to his family as well as the society, and all possible means have been adopted to conclude that his/her condition is untreatable. People with psychological disorders, dual personalities, criminals, and serial murderers often have such strong yet irrational underlying beliefs and mental framework that judges are left with little choice, but to decide death for them. In other cases, people suffering from epidemic incurable diseases are a potential source of threat to the society, because the people they live with are susceptible to acquiring the disease. However, such people should be isolated from others and utmost effort should be made to let them live. Euthanasia is by no means, an amicable solution for them. Non-voluntary euthanasia has always been condemned because it is fundamentally, no less than a crime to cause a person to die without his/her unless decided by law. However, voluntary euthanasia is often justified by a vast majority of people. There are countries, where voluntary euthanasia is even legalized. It is done in an attempt to favor and support personal freedom. People have conventionally started to favor human rights to such an extent that little criticism is offered to an attempt by an individual to commit suicide. Suicide is considered justified. It is thought of as a means of escape for the individual who committed it given he/she preferred death over the circumstances he/she was living in. Over the time, people have grown considerably apathetic to such growing trends in the society. People do not mind voluntary euthanasia much because they consider it, an amicable way out of the miseries of life. Exhibition of such a behavior by the society makes it easy for the physicians to commit such a dreadful act of killing their patient. This fact has been acknowledged in a research carried out by (Manning 8), who found that the most fundamental factor that eased the murder of a patient for physicians was the general conception that euthanasia is a free of pain “good death” that a patient is given upon his/her approval. Such beliefs are far from rational! Even if a person permits another person to give him/her euthanasia, it is wrong to obey him/her. This is because an individual happens to go through certain stages in his/her life, that differ from one another in terms of morality and courage. (Keown 9). It is not unusual for an individual to choose to die in certain critical moments of his/her life. An individual may occasionally feel so low in moral so as to find no other means of escape from the trauma, but death. Many times, people even tell others to kill them or pick up a revolver or pistol to shoot themselves, but do not fire because somewhere, in their state of mind, they still maintain a sense of wisdom, righteousness and rationality that convinces them to alter their decision at the eleventh hour. Does this mean that it was rational to kill them the first time they opted for it? Certainly not! Man is the creation of God. His life period should, therefore, be decided by no one else but God because man has to return to God after death. It is the extreme of irrationality to put an individual’s life to end except for certain limited reasons that will be discussed shortly. Many people claim that if a patient suffers from immense pain and there is no amicable way to rescue him from the pain, euthanasia should be given to him/her if he allows it. They support their assertion with the argument that such a patient not only suffers himself, but also remains a constant source of pain and agony for his family and friends. Also, it is thought that “allowing such people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live” (“BBC”). Instead of adhering to a patient’s decision to die just for the sake of fee, physicians should abstain from such acts and instead, exercise all possible means to convince the discouraged patient to change his/her decision. Acceding to such a patient’s will also involves the killing doctor in the act of suicide and both are held accountable for the heinous act in the court of nature. Euthanasia is wrong even if there is such a case where the patient willingly accepts death. In the present age, there are many ways to free a patient from pain without having to kill him. This can be achieved by giving him anesthesia. A patient that can not be cured and feels immense pain when conscious should be kept unconscious, yet alive. “People can now live for months and even years attached to a variety of tubes and technologies” (Lebaron). It is not surprising for science to come up with amicable solutions for his disease given the enormous research that is being carried out all over the world in the present age. Today, many such diseases are treatable that were thought untreatable in the past. Even the people related to such a patient would prefer to see their relative unconscious yet alive instead of seeing him die. Euthanasia is also unethical even from a religious perspective (Aksoy). Religion conventionally spreads the message of hope. Followers are encouraged to pray and remain hopeful about the health of their relative. Conclusion: Euthanasia is, indeed, one of the most controversial issues and is extremely sensitive in its nature given it is fundamentally, an attempt to finish an individual’s life. Life is the most precious thing in this world. The world retains its meaning and significance only with life. Life is an individual’s most valuable possession that lends meaning to all other things he/she has in this world. Also, since deeds of an individual in this world have a fundamental influence on the sort of life he/she will resort to in the world hereafter. Hence, no one should interfere with an individual’s life period because its consequences prolong ever after that. Euthanasia is wrong in all cases unless if and only if, law deems it justified to kill a person. Euthanasia is justified only in case a court imposes the penalty of death upon a criminal because of his/her criminal record in the past. It is certainly, not unethical to murder a murderer! In fact, it is the demand of justice that must be fulfilled at the earliest in all cases. Criminals are a threat to the peace of society. There is no point regretting the death of a criminal because it benefits the society in many potential ways. Also, it is a means of taking revenge on behalf of all those individuals, who ever fall prey to the criminality of the accused who is given euthanasia. Also, euthanasia is the most rational means of bringing a criminal’s life to end because it would not cause him pain. Death is already, too big a punishment for any criminal and the people, related to him. It should, at least, not be painful. Unless chosen by law, euthanasia should not be permitted and should be condemned in all forms. Works cited: Aksoy, Sahin. “Ethical Considerations on the End of Life Issues in Turkey.” n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. “Arguments in favour of euthanasia.” BBC: Ethics guide. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. Cavan, Seamus and Dolan, Shean. Euthanasia: the debate over the right to die. USA: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. 2000. Dyck, Tamara. “Euthanasia - Described and Debated.” 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. Keown, John. Euthanasia examined: ethical, clinical and legal perspectives. UK: Cambridge University Press. 1995. Lebaron Jr. Garn. “Rethinking the Ethic: A Possible Solution.” 1999. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. Manning, Michael. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: killing or caring? USA: Paulist Press. 1998. Read More