Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Euthanasia refers to termination of the life of a patient who has no prospect of recovering. The patient might be in great pain and suffering, which calls for termination of his or her life in order to release him or her from pain.

Termination of life qualifies to be euthanasia if a professional or a medical practitioner does it. Moreover, Euthanasia is granted to a patient if he or she does not have a prospect of recovering. In the modern society, Euthanasia is an ethical issue that has raised a controversy between those supporting it and those opposed to it.

Mercy killing takes two major forms, depending on the concept and procedure. Voluntary Euthanasia takes place when the patient requests for the termination of his or her life (Torr 87). Apart from requesting the hospital to terminate his or her life, the patient might as well give consent to the termination of his or her life. In some circumstances, the family and friends of the patient might request the hospital to terminate the life of the patient without necessarily informing the patient. This is termed as involuntary euthanasia.

Involuntary euthanasia takes place when the patient is unable to give consent due to incompetence. Positive euthanasia takes place when the patient is assisted to die through injection of lethal drugs or shooting. Negative or passive euthanasia happens when the patient is left to die without injection of lethal drugs. This takes place when medication is stopped or when the doctor switches off the life-supporting machine.

Euthanasia is highly contested in society since some people claim that God gives life, and only he can take it. Others believe that the sick person should not be left to suffer, but instead relatives and friends must intervene through mercy killing. Proponents suggest that Euthanasia is cost effective implying that the family can save on resources and time by simply helping the patient to die.

Again, Euthanasia is preferred because it saves on the hospital bed and space meaning that curable patients can be admitted (Nitschke 28). Others observe that Euthanasia is the only option if society is to save drugs and fluids, which are usually wasted on patients who will never recover. If Euthanasia is adopted in many countries in the world, doctors will have adequate time to attend to curable diseases and conditions.

Families can as well save on the little resources instead of wasting them on the sick who will never recover. Apart from the issue of cost effectiveness, euthanasia is preferred in the western countries because it is the honorable exit from pain, suffering, and possible humiliation. Euthanasia is considered the only way that one can die with some honor. Based on this argument, we should look at life beyond more existence and consider its quality. When life becomes useless, it should be terminated.

Supporters of euthanasia observe that the principle of individual freedom should be upheld even in matters related to health. An individual should be allowed to choose between life and death. If an individual finds out that his or her life is meaningless, then he or she has the right to terminate it.

Philosophers have also contributed to the topic by noting that the physically fit have a moral obligation of not allowing the sick to suffer if they can help in ending pain. The healthy individuals should use all available means to save those suffering even if this help means employing euthanasia.

Although a number of reasons have been given to justify euthanasia, it should not be legalized because of the sanctity of life. Human life has an intrinsic value and it must be respected at all conditions. Nothing should be done to interfere with human life. If euthanasia is legalized, people will lose respect for human life.

Euthanasia amounts to violation of professional ethics. Medical practitioners are trained in healing and protecting life. In this case, they are not supposed to destroy life. Hippocratic Oath requires that medical doctors must never use their knowledge against human life. They should always support it even if conditions are unbearable. Medicine is not an actual science. In this regard, there could be a possibility of error in medical diagnosis.

A mistake in medical diagnosis causes serious problems because euthanasia does not give the patient a chance to correct the error (Mannes 16). In some parts of the world, such as India and Africa, people believe that miracles might happen, and the patient might be healed. Some individuals argue that sometimes, the condition of the patient might be declared incurable, but after some time the patient is healed miraculously. In other words, we should always hold our patience as we wait for miracles.

Only God gives life and he should be the one taking it. No other person should end it. As human beings, we should always be optimistic for a cure. A cure might be discovered tomorrow because what is incurable today can be cured tomorrow. It will be painful to learn that an individual was assisted to die yet a cure was on the way. Although people have individual freedoms and rights, no person has the right over his or her life.

An individual with friends and family members cannot claim to have the absolute right over his or her life. Our friends and family members are also stakeholders in our lives, and they have a right over our decisions. In some communities, such as African communities, it will be better having a patient in any condition rather than having a dead person. Family members will prefer having a sick person in the house as opposed to having memories of the beloved one (Rachels 56).

The debate on euthanasia is importunate since no group is willing to accept the views of the opposing group. In conclusion, euthanasia is based on two issues, one of them being individual right and the other one is the avoidance of pain and suffering. From a personal standpoint, euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unethical. In most countries of the west, euthanasia is legal implying that it is exercised without restrictions.

Life should always be respected, and any attempt to terminate it should be resisted. As argued by some opponents of euthanasia, a cure might be discovered in the future. Moreover, a miracle might happen along the way since many people have been cured miraculously. For medical practitioners, their role is to protect life but not to terminate it. Therefore, euthanasia should never be allowed in hospitals. Those found discussing it should be prosecuted in the court of law. Allowing euthanasia in society will be disrespecting human life.

Works Cited

Mannes, Marya. Euthanasia vs. the Right to Life. Baylor Law Review 27.69 (1975): 14-26. Print.

Nitschke, Philip. The Peaceful Pill Handbook. New York: Exit International Press, 2006. Print.

Rachels, James. The end of life: Euthanasia and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Torr, James. Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)