The Main Pros and Cons of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia Debate By Euthanasia Debate Euthanasia, also, known as mercy killing or physician assisted killing refers to the practice of deliberately ending the life of a terminally ill person so as to relieve him/her of pain and sufferings. Etymologically the term Euthanasia comes from two Greek words “eu” meaning goodly or well, and “thanatos” meaning death (Medicine Net.com). Literally translated, therefore, the term Euthanasia means the good death. Euthanasia is a debatable ethical issue because it seems to violate individual’s right to life, on the one hand, and on the other hand, a denial of euthanasia seems to violate the individual’s right to self-determination. This paper analyses, critically, the arguments for and against Euthanasia. In the conclusion, I have given a personal opinion on my view of Euthanasia. The following are the main pros and cons of Euthanasia. One of the main arguments advanced in support of Euthanasia is the argument that Euthanasia is a morally right action because human beings have a right to self-determination, and for that reason, they should be allowed to choose their own fate (ProCon.org, n.d.). The proponents of Euthanasia contend that since human beings have the right to self-determination, denying euthanasia to the terminally sick patients who need and request for it is immoral and a violation of their right to self-determination. In law the issue of self-determination in regard to Euthanasia is a controversial issue, especially in the United States. Various courts in the United States have interpreted this issue differently. The following case demonstrates how the issue of self-determination in the United States constitution is a controversial issue. Year 1975, the 21 year old Karen Ann Quinlan was admitted in a hospital in a comma. The doctors at the hospital later declared Quinlan to be in a persistent vegetative state. After spending five months on a ventilator, Quinlan’s parents requested that the ventilator be removed and that Quinlan be allowed to die peacefully. The doctors at the hospital, however, objected to Quinlan parents’ requests, and this made the parents to bring the matter to a New Jersey Superior Court. In the ruling, to the disappointment of Quinlan’s parents, the New Jersey Superior Court denied the request of Quinlan’s parents. When Quinlan’s parents, however, took the matter to the New Jersey Supreme court, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Superior Court and ruled that Quinlan’s constitutional right to privacy included her right to be removed from the ventilator. This case shows that the issue of self-determination in regard to Euthanasia is not only a moral dilemma, but also a legal dilemma. The second main argument advanced by the proponents of Euthanasia is the argument that assisting a terminally ill patient to die is a better and a more humane choice than not assisting them (Wreen, 1988). The proponents of this view argue that, in most instances, the people who undergo euthanasia are the people who are seriously sick, and the people who are unable to do even the basics of life like to move, to breathe, or even to think- these kinds of people have virtually nothing to enjoy in life and some of them have even lost the ability to self-determine. For the proponents of this view, therefore, assisting these kinds of terminally ill patients to die is an act of mercy; the proponents of this view conclude that choosing to help such patients to die is indeed a better and a more human choice than choosing not to assist them. For that reason, therefore, for the proponents of Euthanasia, Euthanasia is a morally right action because it is an act of mercy meant to relieve the people who are experiencing extreme pain due to sickness. The third argument advanced by the proponents of Euthanasia is the argument that Euthanasia is a morally right action because does not open the floodgates of murder of innocent people under the guise of euthanasia, as the people opposed to Euthanasia argue. The proponents of this view contend that, there is no proof that the legalization of Euthanasia can open the floodgates of the murder of innocent people. The proponents of Euthanasia also contend that Euthanasia is morally right and should be legalized because it makes economic sense. For the proponents of this view, giving medical care to the terminally sick patients is normally very expensive for both the government and the families of the terminally sick patients (Angel, 2012). The proponents of this view go on to argue that, every year, the US government spends billions of dollars on the terminally sick patients; in many instances, the proponents of Euthanasia contend, some families of the terminally sick patients become bankrupt because of paying medical bills for their sick family members. For the proponents of Euthanasia, therefore, the legalization of euthanasia would significantly reduce these medical expenses. The proponents of Euthanasia also contend that Euthanasia is morally right and should be practiced because it is not contrary to the Hippocratic Oath as the opponents of Euthanasia contend. The Hippocratic Oath demands that doctors should always endeavour to save human life; the Hippocratic Oath demands that doctors should do no harm. The proponents of Euthanasia contend that by administering Euthanasia, physicians do not cause harm, but they bring about relief to their patients. The proponents of Euthanasia contend that, although Euthanasia ultimately leads to the death of the patient, the main intention of the physician is not to kill the patient, but to relieve him/her of the intense pains that they are going through. For that reason, therefore, the proponents of Euthanasia contend that Euthanasia is not in any way opposed to the Hippocratic Oath. Having looked at the main arguments advanced in support of Euthanasia, let us look at the cons or the man arguments advanced in opposition to Euthanasia. One of the main arguments advanced by the opponents of Euthanasia is the argument that euthanasia is morally wrong because it is an infringement on individual right to life; for the proponents of this view, although human beings have the right to self-determination, that right, however, is limited and doesn’t include the right to take away one’s life. The proponents of this view contend that the right to live is inalienable right and no one has the right to take it away. For this reason, therefore, the proponents of this view argue that the physicians who administer Euthanasia gravely violate the individual right to life. The proponents of this view, also, argue that Euthanasia is not only immoral, but it is also immoral; the proponents of this position cite various court rulings in the USA that show that Euthanasia is an infringement on the individual right to life. The following case is an example of a court ruling that shows Euthanasia is illegal in the United States. A fifty two year old Thomas Youk, from Michigan, was suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. Youk requested for Euthanasia, and in fulfilment of his wish, Doctor Jack Kevorkian administered a lethal drug to Jack and Jack died instantly. Doctor Kevorkian had filmed Youk’s death and this video tape was used in court as evidence against Doctor Kevorkian, when this case was taken to a Michigan court later. In the ruling, the court convicted Doctor Kevorkian of second degree murder. When the case was later taken to the Michigan court of appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the conviction, despite Doctor Kevorkian’s plea that he had merely committed a “mercy killing”. This case shows that Euthanasia is illegal in the United States. The second main argument in opposition to Euthanasia is a religious argument. According to this argument, life is given by God, and it is God only, therefore, who has the right to take back human life. In many world religions, especially Abrahamic religions, life is viewed as being sacred. For that reason, therefore, Euthanasia is viewed as devaluing human life. The proponents of this view also argue that, although a person may be terminally ill, we cannot be absolutely certain that the person will die; for the proponents of this view, it is possible for a person to be healed by God through a miracle. For this reason, therefore, the anti-euthanasia argue that euthanasia is not an act of mercy, and, therefore, a morally right action. The opponents of Euthanasia also contend that the legalization of euthanasia will lead to unacceptable negative consequences whereby unscrupulous doctors will be used to assist people who are unhappy with their life to commit suicide. For this reason, therefore, the proponents of this view argue that Euthanasia is immoral and should not be legalized. The opponents of Euthanasia also argue that legalization of Euthanasia on economic grounds is morally unacceptable. For the proponents of this view, human beings are more important than money, and for that reason human life should never be sacrificed so as to save some money. The opponents of Euthanasia go on to argue that money is meant to serve human beings and for that reason practising euthanasia so as to save money is morally unjustifiable. Conclusion In conclusion, a critical review of the arguments for and against Euthanasia shows that the arguments advanced in opposition to Euthanasia are stronger than the arguments advanced in support of Euthanasia. The arguments advanced in support Euthanasia have three main weaknesses. Firstly, the argument that the right to self-determination means that individuals who request Euthanasia should be granted is a fallacious argument. This is because, if we grant that the right to self-determination demand that individuals should be granted their request for Euthanasia, by the same logic, we should argue that suicide is legal, and that every person who wish to die should be killed. But since we hold that suicide is immoral and illegal, we should also hold that Euthanasia is immoral and illegal. Secondly, the argument that Euthanasia is an act of mercy is a flawed argument. This is because, although Euthanasia actually seems to be an act of mercy, assisting a person to die, however, violates the individual’s right to life. This is because the individual inalienable right to life demands that one should not be deprived of his/her life, under any circumstance, unless in case of capital punishment. Thirdly, the argument that Euthanasia is a means of health care cost containment is also an incorrect argument. This is because human life is more important than money; money is actually meant to serve human beings, and not vice versa. For that reason, therefore, it is immoral to administer Euthanasia, just to save some money. For these reasons, therefore, the arguments advanced in support of Euthanasia are flawed and not based on facts. Consequently, I am of the view that Euthanasia is indeed immoral and should never be legalized. This is because I find Euthanasia to be against individual right to life, and its legalization can open floodgates of murder of innocent people under the pretext of Euthanasia. Works Cited Angell, M. 2012. “May Doctors Help You to Die? New York Review Book. 11th October. Medicine Net.com. “Euthanasia”. Web. ProCon. org. “Euthanasia Pros and Cons”. Web. Ibid., “Legal Precedents: Landmark Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Legal Cases”. Wreen, M. 1988. “The definition of Euthanasia”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Vo. 48. No. 4. Read More