Euthanasia

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the termination of a person’s life due to terminal illness to relieve them of their suffering. A person’s life is often ended at their request, but at other times it is ended at the request of their family members, physicians, or court order (Keown, 2018). In the United Kingdom, euthanasia is against the law; hence it is considered illegal. Committing this crime can lead to fourteen years of imprisonment. In many years now, euthanasia has been an issue debated by many healthcare facilitators and many other people. The argument is surrounded by ethical, religious, and practical considerations. Many ethical questions are raised concerning this issue; for instance, people ask whether there is a moral difference between letting a person die or killing them. An example of a religious question raised is whether a human being is allowed to decide on when a person should and when to die. Several people believe that euthanasia should not be allowed since it can be abused and used as a cover-up for murder. On the other hand, some people believe that every person has a right to control their life, hence can decide on what time, what way, and on whose side to die. I believe that euthanasia should not be permitted since it is not only morally inappropriate but also invades the human right to life.

In some countries, for example, India, committing or attempting suicide is illegal. According to research, in 1994, the “constitutional validity of Indian Penal Code Section 309” was defied in the supreme court. The supreme court passed that the section was unconstitutional under Article 21 of the constitution. A compelling case of instigation of the commission of suicide was brought forth in the supreme court in 1996. The defendants were sentenced in the trial court, and later, the sentence was supported by the High court. The defendants appealed the matter in the supreme court and proposed that the “right to die,” be included in Article 21 of the constitution (Peterson, 2017). However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, Belgium, and some states in the United States, that is, Washington, Texas, Oregon, Florida, California, euthanasia has been legalized over time (Keown, 2018). Recognized ethics committees exist in the U.S.’s hospitals, nursing homes, and hospitals. Moreover, advance health directives and living wills are now common around the world. In living wills, a person is supposed to state his or her wishes for medical care in case they are unable to make a decision for themselves in the process.

There are many misinterpretations of data, a misconception of history, and misinformation that support the act of euthanasia. For instance, people believe that developments of biomedical technology, particularly the life-sustaining technology, have formed a unique public interest in voluntary and physician-assisted euthanasia. According to the “Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” the expansion for the need to acquire medical assistance in fastening death is a consequence of advancements in medical science and the development of technologies. Over 2000 years ago, the Hippocratic Oath was passed where physicians were neither allowed to administer any deadly drug to a patient if asked for nor make a suggestion that implied the same. This oath supported the minorities who were against euthanasia. An interest in euthanasia in the U.S. began in 1870, when Samuel Williams, a commentator, proposed that euthanasia be permitted to allow a person to die in a painless death. The issue of euthanasia has been in line for a very long time, even before the development of new technologies such as life-support machines, dialysis, or mechanical respirators (Odunuga, 2019). The discussions of supporting euthanasia have long existed, where people couched them in the same language we are using today, “the relief of pain and suffering,” “patients’ rights,” and many more other words.

Yes, rather than just creating an alleged need for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the advancements that have been made in biomedical technology should help to avoid them. According to research, it is quite right that legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is on the rise. There is growing conventional funding for consenting doctors to administer euthanasia to patients with a terminal illness and who wish to accelerate their deaths. This is clear in polls that have existed in over twenty-five years now, where the majority of Americans support this act (Nordqvist, 2017). However, the support is neither too sincere nor too intense. A close examination of the polling data will show that there is a “rule of the thirds.” A third of the American population supports the legalization of euthanasia under a wide variety of situations. Also, a third oppose the matter under any conditions, and a third support the topic in a few circumstances and yet still oppose it in most situations. People will tend to support euthanasia when the question raised is hypothetical. When people feel that they are becoming a burden to their family, or they find the dying process meaningless, they tend to ask for euthanasia or their relatives ask the physician to administer it. No person has a right to end the life of a person because they are a burden that is quite similar to committing murder.

According to the supporters of euthanasia, every individual has a right to live with dignity; also, those same individuals have a right to die with dignity. Some medical conditions are too painful, and pointlessly protracted that the competence of the physician to lessen suffering through palliative care is exceeded (Nordqvist, 2017). Obstinate terminal suffering takes away a patient’s dignity. Moreover, biomedical technologies can prolong human life. According to these pro-euthanasia community, the prolongation often leads to a connected extension of needless and meaningless suffering. The healthcare system and families are the ones to suffer due to wastage of costly resources and time on patients who have no chance of recovery. Therefore, the argument goes that it is not cruel or disrespectful to assist such patients, mostly if they repeatedly have and asked for the procedure to end their lives. I am against this point of view. The most convincing argument in favor of this act of euthanasia is the argument supporting an obligation to commit suicide in the name of democracy (Peterson, 2017). We do not have a right to how we want to come into existence, but we do have a right to how long we continue to exist. Even though we do have a right to decide on how long we remain in existence, it is not morally upright to execute such a right.

I believe that euthanasia should not continue to be legalized since this act is inhumane

and inconsiderable. Many people think that too much suffering or agonizing pain is what makes people pursue euthanasia. On the contrary, many surveys were done in the U.S.A, and the Netherlands indicate that less than a third of the victims of euthanasia were because of agonizing pain. Psychological factors such as depression, feeling like a burden, and loss of dignity cause people to commit euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia may not only be for people with a terminal illness. The act has extended to those who are not terminally ill. Medics do acknowledge that it is nearly impossible to guess the life expectancy of a patient, even when there is a stated life expectancy period. Some patients who have been agonized with terminal illnesses may live for years. However, euthanasia activists have replaced the term terminal illness with phrases such as, “hopeless condition,” “incurably ill,” and many other terms (Paterson, 2017).

My bottom line is that no person is obligated to authorize physicians to kill their patients. Killing a patient is against the values and morals of the professionalism of medicine. The work of a doctor is to save lives and, where possible, prolong them, not the other way around. Although euthanasia has been legalized in some countries, it does not mean that a doctor or a patient has the right to control life. A patient should undergo palliative care and hope for the best, although the chances of survival may be meager. Palliative care will allow one to control pain and other symptoms of their illness and also receive social, spiritual, and psychological support. Human life is sacred; hence should be respected regardless of gender, race, social status, or class. Life is meaningful in all ways, and not just a means to reach an end. That is why it is illegal in most countries.

References

Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press.

Nordqvist, C. (2017). Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Medical news today.

Odunuga, S. A. (2019). Euthanasia and Suicide. Does Ownership of Life Lead to Right to Die? Still on the debate.

Paterson, C. (2017). Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach. Routledge.