Should Euthanasia Be Legalized - Essay Example

Should Euthanasia be legalised? Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Euthanasia can be defined as the process in which someone is helped to die because of either the person is in constant pain or the person is terminally ill (Jackson, 2005, p. 21). Sometimes referred as mercy killing or assisted suicide, euthanasia is not legal in most parts of the world but it is acceptable based on legal reasons in some countries (Berry, 2006, p. 88). Some countries that have legalized euthanasia include Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg while some countries’ legal system is left either to states or to judiciary to determine whether someone should be assisted to die (Dowboggin, 2003, p. 29). Euthanasia in most cases is achieved through lethal injection and it is administered to an individual or a person administers to herself or himself, what is referred to as assisted suicide. Four types of euthanasia exist, which are active, passive, voluntary and non-voluntary ((Taylor, Ashelford and Fernandes, 2008, p. 52). These types come with different conditions that must be understood to ensure the appropriate decisions are made. The issue of euthanasia has been discussed extensively and numerous perspectives and views are presented on the issue. Issues and perspectives on euthanasia are vastly variable and the major debate is based on religious teachings. Religion, specifically Christianity and Islam, is against any type of death without been based on circumstances beyond prevention (McDougall and Gorman, 2008, p. 71). Religion such as Catholic belief that suffering is within God’s plan and that merciful killing should not be sanction (The Catholic Church). Muslims also categorically state that any form of suicide should not be encouraged and thus should be forbidden. Moreover, Jewish also hold the same understanding that suicide should not be accepted in any form. However, other religious teachings and religious cultures view euthanasia has been important (Jackson, 2005, p. 34). For example, Hinduism is based on consequences of action. Even though the teaching does not champion euthanasia, doing good is a moral obligation and thus participating in merciful killing is not morally wrong. Buddhism also indirectly champions for euthanasia through stating that when one life ends, the end influences the way the next life will start (Biggs, 2001, p. 23). This transition is based on ‘Karma’ since the death of a Buddhist should be free from fear, hate and anger and the decision should be based on enlightenment and selfless. From these different perspectives, there is an understanding that life is important. However, some people who are not religious or belief in religion that does not belief in presence of superpower person such as God or Allah should not be prevented from fulfilling the requirements based on available information. These non-religious persons argues that if God, for example, created the universe and introduced different variety of animals, then why is it right for a person to kill a dog that is terminally ill. Thus, the issue of religion and euthanasia is debatable and depends on the context of the argument and religious orientation. Moreover, other people may argue, people (religious) are going against the will of God or Allah. For example, terminally ill patient may be the will of God and thus any assistance through putting the sick individual in life support contradicts the expectations of God. Apart from religious perspective, doctors also have difficulty in deciding on euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath that was written by Hippocrates is an important document that is aimed at maintaining high ethical standards within the medical sector (Berry, 2006, p. 71). The original document and its contents are still used and that illustrates its impact to contemporary medical society as well as influence of ancient medicine. Many of the issues that are addressed by doctors are addressed extensively in this document. One of such issues is the Euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath affirms that deadly medicines should not be administered to an individual even if they are requested. This means that euthanasia is wrong if a medical person who basis his decision on Hippocratic Oath performs (Cavan and Dolan, 2000, p. 77). However, it may be argued that the decree was passed long time ago whereby Paganism may have been championed while advancement of technology based medicine was at all time low (Jackson, 2005, p. 56). Moreover, the act has been ratified in different countries and the aim of the act may have been diluted. Regarding doctors, advancement in technology may mean that new measures like life support and palliative strategies exists that allows an individual to live longer. When such perspectives, advancement of technology and Hippocratic Code, exists does faces two important life related issues, which are whether the decision that they take is moral or whether it is ethical. Such issues also brings into focus the autonomy of the family or the individual. Another important issue that arises when euthanasia is discussed is the autonomy of the family and the individual (Torr, 1999, p. 61). It is important to note that individual decisions are important and thus should be respected and hence if an individual aims to die it is his or her decision. However, the individual may be suffering from psychological challenges associated with illness or context of the disease (Council of Europe, 2003). This means that an individual may decide to die because of clinical depression. Some people argue that some medical conditions can be managed by providing medical management strategies that can mitigate against pains (Taylor, Ashelford and Fernandes, 2008, p. 48). Diagnosis of depression is sometimes complicated because some symptoms such as weight loss, low mood and energy are usually associated to terminal affliction (Berry, 2006, p. 31). Therefore, this argument promotes strict controls to ensure if a decision is reached, it should be based on appropriate information. Apart from individual autonomy, family autonomy should be factored in determining end of life decisions. Family members may ‘force’, through persistence and pressure, in making an individual to decide on euthanasia. Family members may base their decisions on ulterior motives while others may base their decisions on the love of an individual (Tulloch, 2005, p. 43). For example, greed may make some family members to decide on death so that they may benefit financially or other members may decide on death since they pity the individual because of continuous pain that the person is accustomed (Jackson, 2005, p. 9). Debate on human euthanasia usually evokes emotions from different perspectives. Justifications on both sides of the debate are convincing and there views have logic. Generally, at times a need for merciful killing be it passive, voluntary, involuntary or even active exists. However, it is prudent for society to determine the cost of life from perspective of mental, physical, financial or emotion. This also means that a group of persons or a person should not be left to determine when, how and if an individual should die. Thus, end of life decisions should not be based on value of the individual that the society/individual bases on because it raises issues associated with moral and ethics. It may also be argued that legalization of euthanasia may be championed towards poor, old, mentally disabled, terminally ill or even suicidal. Moreover, the role of a doctor is to cure and heal and thus, a question should be asked whether euthanasia should be included to the job description. From this perspective, the issue of euthanasia should be addressed based on context. sReferences Berry, T. 2006. Euthanasia. London: iUniverse Biggs, H. 2001. Euthanasia: Death with Dignity and the Law. New York: Hart Publishing Cavan, S., and Dolan, S. 2000. Euthanasia: The Debate over the Right to Die. Sydney: The Rosen Publishing Group Council of Europe. 2003. Euthanasia: Vol. 1: Ethical and human aspects. New York: Council of Europe Dowboggin, I. 2003. A merciful end: The euthanasia movement in modern America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, L. 2005. Euthanasia. London: Raintree McDougall, J., and Gorman, M. 2008. Euthanasia: A Reference Handbook, 2nd Ed. New York: ABC-CLIO Taylor, V., Ashelford, S., and Fernandes, T. 2008. Understanding depression in palliative and end-of-life care. Nursing Standard, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 48-57 The Catholic Church. 1994, 1997. Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd ed). Washington, DC: USCC Publishing Services. Torr, J. 1999. Euthanasia. Greenhaven: Greenhaven Press Tulloch, G. 2005. Euthanasia: Choice and Death. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Read More