For Active Voluntary Euthanasia
The position I will be discussing in this argument is that Active Voluntary Euthanasia should be legalized. Active voluntary Euthanasia is the practice of administering medications to bring the patient’s painless death at the patient’s request. One argument for this position is the significance of active voluntary euthanasia in protecting the human dignity. As a law, voluntary euthanasia is accepted in some countries such as the United States of America. Euthanasia is also one of the most researched subjects in modern bioethics. A survey conducted in the United States reveals that 46% of physicians support for euthanasia while 41% of physicians are against voluntary euthanasia (Saad, 2017). In my position, active voluntary euthanasia should be allowed only in some life circumstances of life from the way we understand the value of life. I choose this position about active voluntary euthanasia because in some circumstances euthanasia protects human dignity. Imagine a situation whereby illness has left you incapable of doing most of the life basics such as being unable to think, being unable to eat, being unable to breathe and perhaps living with extreme pain to the point where you prefer death to live under these conditions.
An objection to this argument is that terminating the life of a patient even if it is the patients’ request can cause a lot of harm to the family members and all other persons who care for the patient. Every patient is taken to the hospital with the hope that he or she will get healed and continue with life normally. Take a case where family members have taken their loved one to the hospital, and they have sacrificed a lot of their time and resources for the treatment of their loved one. If this particular patient requests for euthanasia and eventually dies, the family members are left with a lot of grieve considering the number of resources and time they have sacrificed for the patient (Simkins,2014). Also, active voluntary euthanasia can have an effect of leaving a big gap at the family of the victim of euthanasia. For instance, if a parent requests for death from a physician, the children in the family who dependent for that particular parent will then be left without anyone to provide for their basic needs. The children will not be able to attend school, and they will also lack moral and parental support. Lack of moral and parental support can make the children give up in life and end up being involved in criminal activities.
My reply to that objection is that Active voluntary euthanasia can be of great help in some life conditions and circumstances such as Persistent Vegetative State. Persistent Vegetative State is a condition, which leaves individuals in a state where they require tube-feeding and hydration. The condition is mostly caused by fatal accidents where individuals are left in helpless positions where they can no longer support their families nor help themselves (Koodamara, 2018). Instead of family members and friends keep on watching their loved one suffer under the Persistent Vegetative State, voluntarily euthanasia will help the family members and also the patient. Also, I support voluntary euthanasia because just as every individual has the right to live, then each one should also have the right to determine how and where to die.
In summary, active voluntary euthanasia has both advantaged and disadvantages rendering the reason why the subject is currently the most researched subject in modern bioethics. Some countries have legalized active voluntary euthanasia while in some other countries the matter is still debatable. My position in voluntary euthanasia is that the act should be legalized only in some critical life conditions and circumstances where voluntary euthanasia can serve to protect human dignity.