The End and Ability to Choose - Essay Example

With the advancement of technology that has more than made the hitherto impossible a decade ago possible, the complications of life have been steeped a notch higher; one can receive an organ from another donor and live normally again, a terminally-ill individual can get machine aided life support and live for even longer, and one a more positive note, the very machines have aided the discoveries that have more than made life comfortable. More specifically, the ethics in the use of machines to prolong life seems to be at odds with the moral dynamics of nature itself; should nature be allowed to take its own course with regards to suffering individuals on their deathbed? Is euthanasia equal to natural death in view of immense circumstantial suffering? And what is the place of the physician with regards to a patient’s life? 

In the mix is the constitutional legality of such a desire, with those championing the foregoing course maintaining that like the constitutional safeguards that guarantee the basic human rights, the termination of life-saving medical treatment or refusal thereof is the prerogative of the individual. On the other end, doctors indeed have a moral duty to keep their patients alive no matter the condition[s] involved. More critically, the legalization of euthanasia may well create the incentives for certain scrupulous insurance dealers to terminate numerous lives in exchange for huge bucks in their pockets.

Though actively advocated for in almost every country the world over, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are only permissible in a few countries. As to whether the very right discussed herein should be a right to all, Derek Humphrey (2009) argues that the degree to which pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different for every individual and that it is only the individual/patient/sufferer who can make a perfect judgment on he/she feels within his/her system. Indeed as it is, individuals’ systems are not sharable, and only it is the individual who knows exactly what they feel at any given time. Accordingly, the decision to end life should, in fact, be an individual decision.

There are a host of quick, dignified, and compassionate ways to execute the right to end individual suffering due to unbearable pain should such be options be made available, with active as well as passive euthanasia both inclusive in the process. In between the two, however, lies the moral dilemma for the health experts; should physicians deliberately cause the death of suffering patients via the prescription of lethal doses of medication, or should they just stop doing/withhold what is necessary for keeping the patients alive such as in the discontinuation of the use of a ventilator and/or starvation via the stoppage of machine aided food supplies?

That even though there may be agreements on the choice of death due to the overboard suffering of patients, the confusion over the modes of death rages on even among the proponents of euthanasia, with some arguing that passive euthanasia is worse than active euthanasia. James Rachels (1975) argues that a patient is worse off offending his/her life through passive euthanasia, for the very process is relatively slow and painful. Accordingly, a suffering individual who chooses to die to be given his/her wish via lethal injection is rather quick and painless. I concur with Rachels's sentiments to note that it is futile to put a patient who is destined to die at the very end on life support even after requesting for an end of his/her life.

The above notwithstanding, it beats logic on how a doctor can abandon a patient at the very hour of need and resign to fate.  It is due to such hanging questions that quite a huge chunk of doctors choose not to administer drugs themselves altogether. In such cases, a doctor may provide a terminally-ill patient with a lethal dose prescription, with the latter taking the medication by themselves, thus, the Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). For a fact, it is more humane that a doctor may choose Assisted Suicide rather than taking drastic actions without the authorization of the patient. Suicide, however, is not permitted according to religious principles, for a person with such a request is regarded as one without trust in God, the giver of life, and thus, rejects in entirety Christ’s plan for the human race. A majority of Christian believers argue that if such requests are legalized, the lack of respect for human life shall have been heightened to unreasonable levels (Mosser, 2013). Nonetheless, either way, one chooses to look at it, PAS allows patients to make the ultimate decision on ending their lives.

In conclusion, it makes more sense to allow terminally-ill patients suffering from unbearable pain to decide whether they would want to continue living or otherwise. As to whether the two modes of euthanasia are the same, well, they aren’t.  Last but not least on this very important matter, a physician should be able to assist patients wishing to end their lives. However, such should not be forced on doctors who would want to be a party to taking the life out of patients.