The Use of Euthanasia in Medicine - Essay Example

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY ON EUTHANASIA Introduction The term Euthanasia refers to an act which is performed by a person with the aim of taking the life of the other person, but at the request of the other person, to do so. This means euthanasia includes such an act which is performed on voluntary basis and excludes any such act which is performed without the approval of the other person (Rachels, pp. 23-29). History Euthenasia was initially commeneced in the fifth century B.C, in the period of ancient greece and rome. As euthanasia is considered as a suicidal act, therefore, throughout the Middle Ages, the law in europe regarding a suicidal act was that if any person performs a suicidal act upon him, then the court of law used to order the local police to drag the body of that person on the streets, just to set an example for those, who wished to perform a suicidal act upon them (Emanuel, 1805-1810). By the end of the 18th century, Euthanasia was quite a controversial topic of discussion. Many experts had ejected the idea of euthanasia and considered to be morally and ethically illegal. But in 1828, for the first time ever in history of mankind, The constituiton of USA made assisted suicide illegal. However, By 1930, Euthanasia had started to gain strong support in USA and other westernicized socities of the world and they were in favor of it. By the 20th and ealy 21st century, Euthanasia has made strong progress in Europe. Countries like Netherlands and Belgium have made it legal. Even Australia and USA have made steps to legalize it. Active and Passive Euthanasia Euthanasia can be either an active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia refers to taking the life of the other person, at his request, by removing the life supporting means. There can be two kinds of life supporting means, ordinary life supporting means and extraordinary life supporting means. Ordinary life supporting means, such as food and water, are basic human needs, which are required by a person at regular intervals, in order to continue his life. In addition, any such death which is caused by the failure to provide the ordinary life supporting means does not comes under the definition of euthanasia. However, it is not necessary for a person to use extraordinary life supporting means to continue his life and a person also has an absolute freedom to discontinue any such medical treatment which can be categorized as an extraordinary life supporting mean. This is because, as there are many intricacies involved in deaths which are caused by the removal of extraordinary life supporting means, so each such case of death must be looked separately and that too thoroughly to ensure that such death was actually caused by the removal of extraordinary life supporting mean. While, active euthanasia, which is also known as mercy killing is a deliberate act which is performed by a person with the aim of taking the life of the other person. Active euthanasia may be performed either with the authority of the other person or without the authority of the other person, that is, where it is not possible to attain the authority of the other person, to perform such an act (Caralis et al, pp. 155-65). Euthanasia is performed by a person when the other person expects him to do so for him as either a favor to him or in the name of love, as the other person wants to be relieved from the suffering which he constantly bears, due to any such disease or may be due to any such accident, and because of which he wishes for death. But, the other person’s death wish should not be fulfilled by culminating his life at his request; instead the medical staff, his family and his friends should try to lessen his pain by appropriate means. Because, with the assistance of latest technologies and numerous developments in the field of medical science, it has now become quite possible to lessen the suffering and pain of an afflicted person to quite an extent through appropriate medication and treatment. Moreover, the afflicted person’s pain can also be lessened through pain killers, but if and only if such pain killer does not cause any severe threat to the afflicted person’s life or the intention is to not to take the life of the afflicted person (Van der Maas, 669-674). At present, the law doesn’t permit anyone to perform euthanasia. The reason behind such a restriction on performing euthanasia by the law is, as euthanasia is similar to suicide and suicide is prohibited by the law. Besides that, from the religion point of view, it is considered as an immoral act, because no one has the right to take the life of an another person nor his own life as well, except for god, that is, only he holds the right to take the life out of a person, because it belongs to him, as he was the one who gave life to every person. So according to the religion point of view, one cant request to an another person to take his life from him and even if he asks the other person to do so for him, the other person shall not fulfill his death wish, no matter under how much pain he is in, or how much suffering he was facing at that moment, instead one should try to minimize his pain or suffering, as much as possible, to help him to continue his remaining life with as much as minimum pain and suffering as possible. But on the other hand, inspite of being considered as an illegal and immoral act by the law and the religion, respectively, majority of the people are in favor of the practice of euthanasia, because as per their point of view as the afflicted person is already under so much pain and facing so much suffering because of any such disease or any such accident, so it is better to relieve the afflicted person form such pain and suffering by fulfilling his death wish as it will help him to die in less pain and suffering. They also believe that in a liberated society of today, a person should be granted with the right by the law and also by his religion to choose the time of his death, all by himself. According to Robertson (1975), The people who are in favor of the practice of euthanasia also believe that those patients, who are suffering from a fatal disease like cancer and who either can’t afford the treatment of such a fatal disease or it is absolutely impossible for the medical staff to treat such a disease at that point of time, as the patient may have reached at the last level of cancer, then he should be granted with the right to choose the time of his death. A fatal disease like cancer forces the afflicted person to keep tolerating the suffering, associated with cancer, which is so severe, that it makes it extremely difficult for them to further continue their life. Besides that, the cancer patients who are at the last stage of cancer often have to face some symptoms which are associated with cancer, such as, exhaustion, weakness, psychological indistinctness, nervousness and queasiness, which have extremely negative effects on the overall functioning of the afflicted person’s mind and body. And as a matter of fact, almost all of these symptoms are associated with cancer in such a way that it is not possible to completely eradicate them from the mind and body of the afflicted person. So in an extremely fatal situation like cancer, where if it is not possible to treat such a disease, then the only alternative with which an afflicted person is left with, through which he can relieve himself from such an extremely agonizing suffering is euthanasia (Rachels, pp. 46-53). Medical and Legal arguments against Euthanasia According to Asch (1996), the arguments presented by medical and legal experts in favor of euthanasia assumes an ideal world where the hospitals, the medical staff and the families of the afflicted person holds no personal interest regarding the death of the afflicted person and are fulfilling the desire of the afflicted person, to take his life from him, in order to relieve him from the pain and sufferings and also just for the sake of providing him eternal peace. But the reality is that we do not live in such an ideal world, instead we live in such a world, where people have egocentric intentions and are always looking to take undue advantage of the other person, by encouraging him to do such an act, which that other person believes to be favorable or beneficial for him, but in the end when the afflicted person realizes that he was betrayed by his own friends and family, then it becomes too late for him to rectify his unintentional action. Moreover, due to the fact, if euthanasia would be legalized, then it is possible that it may be exercised by people on the afflicted person, for their own egocentric intentions (Baume, Peter, and Emma, pp. 137-140). Conclusion Today, we are all living in a free society, which gives us the right to do anything which is beneficial for us, without causing any such harm to any other person, at the same time. Similarly, an incurably unwell person should also have the right to choose the time of his death, all by himself, as he deems appropriate. Because, if an afflicted person is no more in a position to bear further pain and suffering, then its satisfactory that he should be relieved from such pain and suffering, by simply fulfilling his wish, which is, that his life should be terminated right at that moment. Furthermore, if we all are really living in a free society, then an incurably unwell person should be able to request his doctor to perform Voluntary Euthanasia on him, if it is not possible for him to further continue his life. But, if such a person’s request is turned down because the law does not permit a doctor or anyone to perform euthanasia on the other person, then this means that we are not really living in a free society, as we are not permitted to liberally choose our own destiny. Works Cited Asch, David A. "The role of critical care nurses in euthanasia and assisted suicide." New England Journal of Medicine, 334(21), 1996: 1374-1379. Baume, Peter, and Emma OMalley. "Euthanasia: attitudes and practices of medical practitioners." The Medical Journal of Australia, 161(2), 1994: 137-140. Caralis, Panagiota V., et al. "The influence of ethnicity and race on attitudes toward advance directives, life-prolonging treatments, and euthanasia." Journal of Clinical Ethics, 4(2), 1993: 155-65. Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. "Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: attitudes and experiences of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public." The Lancet, 347(9018), 1996: 1805-1810. Robertson, John A. "Involuntary euthanasia of defective newborns: a legal analysis." Stanford Law Review (1975): 213-269. Rachels, James. The End of Life: Euthanasia and morality. Oxford University Press, 1986. Rachels, James. "Active and passive euthanasia." Bioethics: An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice (1997): 1-82. Van der Maas, Paul J., et al. "Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life." The Lancet 338.8768 (1991): 669-674. Read More