Category: Euthanasia

Dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, the debates concerning the procedure called euthanasia have been among the debatable ones and have become one of the most investigated subjects of bioethics. Despite the advancements in medicine and healthcare, many patients, even in the most affluent states, still, die in discomfort. Therefore, such countries as the United States and the United Kingdom are trying to enact a policy that would grant a doctor a lawful right to end a suffering patients life on request (Keown, 2018). The purpose of this paper is to prove why euthanasia should be allowed in the United States and why people sufficing from chronic and incurable diseases should be allowed to end their life.

The discussions of euthanasia implementation in the United States began in the early 19th century after the development of ether, which was applied to pain-relieving. In the early 1900s, advocates commenced arguing for legalizing euthanasia, casting aside religious or moral beliefs (Dugdale et al., 2019). However, the process waned for some decades and revived only in the 1960s under the right-to-die heading, which implied physician-assisted death. In the 1990s, patients suffering from chronic or incurable diseases had a right to decline to receive medical treatment if they chose to (Dugdale et al., 2019). Oregon was the first state to validate such power in 1997. Later, Washington, Maine, California, Vermont, Colorado, Oregon, and Montana accepted the assisted suicide/death procedure. Therefore, as euthanasia is still banned in most of the United States, I believe it is necessary to enact a policy allowing severely ill patients to choose what to do with their life.

I firmly believe that euthanasia should be legalized in all states. First and foremost, people are endowed with a right to choose, so they should decide what to do with their lives. Secondly, I am sure that for terminally ill people, it would be the best option to be assisted in dying rather than commit suicide. Finally, I assert that aid in dying is a necessary measure for relieving someones pain. As for the main policy drivers, access, quality, and cost will be the main focus. The health care policy concerning euthanasia will have to be accessible first. Moreover, it should be of high quality to prove the safety of a method. Eventually, the cost containment must be kept so as not to cause financial burdens on one.

The first rationale concerns the study of bioethics and its principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The question of euthanasia primarily relates to the law of autonomy which nowadays significantly influences U.S. healthcare politics. Keown (2018) stated that the modern approach to autonomy as a value had given rise to supporting voluntary euthanasia. According to Dugdale et al. (2019), autonomy refers to governance over ones own actions (p. 748). The statement implies that while in medical settings, the patient decides what medications or treatments to forego. Researchers state that patient autonomy serves as the justification for informed consent (Dugdale et al., 2019, p. 748). It means that only after a thorough evaluation of risks and benefits coming from medical intervention, a patient can become a stakeholder in a decision-making process concerning their health. Therefore, assisting a patients death does not exclude palliative care that makes a death with dignity a possible option respecting a persons autonomy.

The second rationale supporting the euthanasia implementation across the U.S. is propped by the fact that this method relieves suffering and pain. The primary purpose of every medical worker is to alleviate pain and cure a person of a disease (Mason et al., 2016). Hippocratic Oath proclaims helping ill people as a chief principle and not administering any risks that could destroy a patients health (Mason et al., 2016). In this case, in order to relieve someones pain, it is necessary to resort to aid in dying, especially to alleviate people with chronic or terminal illnesses. Therefore, the Hippocratic Oath also implies assisting someone in death due to their request for help.

Another point I consider essential in issuing a healthcare policy concerning voluntary euthanasia deals with the safety of the procedure. According to some researchers, aid in dying is lauded by advocates for being a safe medical (Dugdale et al., 2019, p. 748). This aid provides safety of the method because the doctors can ensure secure death, whereas suicide cannot. One may use the wrong medications and merely cause more harm to oneself. In addition to this, the lethal drugs must be high-quality to ensure safety. Therefore, the key stakeholders in the procedure are the patients themselves and the doctor.

Assisted death is tautly connected with ethical virtue theory which underlies the concepts of being good and compassionate instead of acting well. Thus, if a physician has such virtues, they will be able to perceive a patients pain. Jordan (2017) asserts that these virtues help guide the physicians in their decision-making and actions in regards to helping their patients (p. 6). Another ethical theory was suggested by Kant, who claimed that people should respect not only themselves but others too. According to Jordan (2017), the notion of respecting others and not treating a person strictly as a means to an end is a key point in morality (p. 5). Therefore, this theory seems beneficial to both sides.

Taking all the things into consideration, it seems reasonable to state that physicians aid in dying is still controversial to patient care. Although, I believe euthanasia must be legalized in the United States to ensure each persons rights are respected. The procedure should be accessible and qualitative to ensure safety while assisting death. Moreover, the principles of ethics are aimed towards helping people, even if such assistance includes euthanasia.

References

Dugdale, L., Lerner, B., & Callahan, D. (2019). Pros and cons of physician aid in dying. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 92(4), 747750.

Jordan, M. (2017). The ethical considerations of physician-assisted suicide. Dialogue & Nexus, 4, 1-7.

Mason, D., Gardner, D., Outlaw, F., & OGrady, E. (2016). Policy & politics in nursing and health care. Elsevier.

In medical, philosophical, and legal literature, euthanasia is usually interpreted in different ways. It may be viewed as an irreversible outcome into non-existence, relieving a patient from suffering, as the killing of terminally ill people at their request, or as a conscious action leading to the painless death. Passive euthanasia is expressed in the fact that the provision of medical care aimed at prolonging life is stopped, shortly after which natural death occurs. Active euthanasia is understood as the introduction to a dying person of any drugs, other means, or other actions that entail a quick and painless onset of death.

In his essay, James Rachels first discusses the moral issue arising between the concepts of passive and active euthanasia. He argues that if the patient can no longer endure physical pain, and asks the doctor to hasten their death, and the doctor will simply stop their treatment, the patients suffering then will only intensify (Rachels, 2018). In this situation, active euthanasia in the form of lethal injection is more humane, according to Rachels.

The second issue about euthanasia that Rachels raises is the difference between killing and allowing one to die. He states that some researchers argue that passive euthanasia is not euthanasia at all, but this approach is only putting the problem aside. Even if allowing one to die is not euthanasia, it is necessary to show why this permission is moral and permissible. The American Medical Association Code states that doctors should never end a life (Rachels, 2018). However, doctors are not obliged to prolong life, making exceptional efforts when restoration of health is impossible. James Rachels, thus, argues that allowing one to die, unlike killing, should not contain a moral burden. He believes that if the intentions and the ensuing consequences are similar, then the actions are equally reprehensible. It follows that active euthanasia, other things being equal, is no worse than passive euthanasia.

For Rachels, it is necessary to emphasize that killing is sometimes even more humane than allowing one to die in order to override the AMAs distinction. If the intention in both cases is for the patient to die, then one action cannot be considered more morally acceptable than the other. Thus, in the end, he calls the doctors to express doubts in the moral doctrines AMA dictates and assess the actual situation at hand.

Reference

Rachels, J. (2018). Active and Passive euthanasia. In L. Vaughn (Ed.), Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (Fifth Edition) (pp. 301305). essay, W. W. Norton & Company.

The problem of euthanasia has long been causing debates in society because it involves a great number of moral and legal issues. Of course, whether to refuse of living or continue it regardless of the pain and other sufferings is primarily the right of a patient, but in most cases, it makes physicians responsible for this right. There exist different opinions concerning giving the right to die to the patient. Some people are inclined to think that this issue is all about pure morality. With regards to this issue, the essence of the debate lies in whether it is moral for a physician to deprive a person of life when he has not given this life to a particular patient; the opponents of this argument, however, state it is even less morally to watch the patient suffering and living a life which cannot even be called such. Other people, in their turn, consider euthanasia as a legal issue believing that it gives an option to the patient inducing him to choose whether to live or to die. On the one hand, such a right makes a patient autonomous and allows him to make independent decisions; on the other hand, it places an additional burden on the patient making him justify his choice. David Velleman, for instance, keeps to the latter idea; he argues against giving the patients a right to die for he regards euthanasia as not a practice of helping some patients to die, but rather the practice of asking them to choose whether to die (Velleman, p. 670). Velleman is correct in his conviction that in this case, the patients decision will be the outcome of a federal right to die; the situation with euthanasia is common to that of abortion with the brightest difference being that in the latter case the right choice may save a life.

To begin with, if dying patients are given a federal right to die, their choice will be predetermined by this right. Now that euthanasia is not legal in most of the countries of the world, dying patients try to fight for this right though they even do not know how much it entails. Most of them claim that they can be responsible for their lives and it is only their decision whether to live or to die. However, this argument takes place because the patients are not fully aware of the responsibility which the legal right to die places on them. In reality, the right to die makes a patient justify his choice, irrespective of which option is chosen. According to Velleman, this ability to choose may be disadvantageous for the patient because unless he can explain, to the satisfaction of others, why he chooses to exist, his only remaining reasons for existence may vanish (Velleman 657). Though Velleman expresses this idea quite clearly, he still never mentions the factors which usually influence the choice of the patients. The matter is that quite often the reason lies far deeper than the mere desire of a dying patient to end his/her sufferings. In most cases, dying patients have caregivers who watch after them. Normally, the desire of a patient to die is explained by the unwillingness to burden these caregivers. This fact should also be taken into consideration if the right to die will ever be considered to be guaranteed to the patients legally. Here it is hard to disagree with Vellemans idea that the resulting rule would leave caregivers free to withhold the option whenever they see fit, even if it is explicitly and spontaneously requested (Velleman, p. 680).

The choice between life and death is also present in the situation with abortions. Perhaps, such a choice is the most complicated because life gives it to people rather rarely. When it comes to abortion, a patient faces the same dilemma as in the case of euthanasia. To make an abortion is a right legally guaranteed to women and it serves as an example of what the federal right to die may result in. A woman that considers whether to make or not to make an abortion is expected to justify her choice at least to her partner. This, however, concerns those cases when the partner is aware of the pregnancy. Otherwise, the woman is expected to justify her choice at least to herself. This is similar to the justification which people would expect from the patient who has to choose between life and death. Comparison with abortions helps to illustrate the implications which giving the patients a legal right to die may involve. The women are expected to terminate the pregnancy if they have well-grounded reasons for that. This is why each woman is, as a rule, given some time to think over her situation and make a final decision. Nevertheless, several women agree to abortion simply because they do not want to have children or are not ready to have them at the moment; these cannot be regarded as valid reasons, though they are sufficient for a doctor to terminate the pregnancy. This is likely to be the case with dying patients. Once they are given the right to die, they, and maybe even their caregivers, will start abusing this right.

In contrast, though abortion is not less controversial than euthanasia, the choice differs greatly from that in the latter instance. First of all, the choice in the case of abortion consists in whether to give the life or take it away, whereas in the case of euthanasia it is the choice between dying easily or going through weeks, months, and sometimes even years of pain and suffering and then still die. When deciding to make an abortion, a woman chooses somebody else, rather than for herself. There is no doubt that it is a physical and emotional trauma for her as well, but it is not the womans health that makes this situation controversial. Taking the babys life away is usually justified by the idea that formally a fetus is not an individual this is why abortion is not considered to be murder, but the fact that a woman deprives a human being of a chance to live remains true. Thus, the main difference between euthanasia and abortion is that in the former instance someone necessarily has to die, while in the latter one life can be saved. Another great difference is that the number of reasons which justify abortion prevails over those which justify euthanasia. Thus, the desire to terminate the pregnancy may be caused by rape, birth defects or medical problems, medical conditions which endanger the womans health if she chooses to keep the baby, birth control failure, etc, while euthanasia is caused by unwillingness to suffer pain or burden the relatives. Though the differences between these two problems prevail, they still have much in common due to the controversy of choice the patient has to make in any of the instances.

In conclusion, the issue of euthanasia is indeed controversial because the decision of whether to end the life of a patient who will die in any case or not involves certain legal problems. The main problem lies in the fact that if the right to die becomes legal, then a dying patient will have to justify the choice which he will make. Since this choice concerns the termination of life, the patient is going to bear responsibility for his decision and, as stated by Velleman, will have to justify not so much his life, as his continued existence. This necessity to justify the choice makes euthanasia similar to abortion where a patient also chooses between life and death. Women have a legal right to abortion and often abuse this right refusing to give birth to children for inadequate reasons, which may serve as an example of what guaranteeing the patients a legal right to die may lead to. It is hard to state which of the issues, euthanasia or abortion, is more controversial, even though differences between them are more numerous than similarities. The only thing which remains clear is that reasons for abortion are more sufficient than those for euthanasia, and this is why the latter should never become a federal right of a patient.

Works Cited

Velleman, David. Against the Right to Die. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17.6 (1992): 665-681.

Introduction

This paper is an analysis of the theory of moral rationalism. The analysis explores how this theory contributes to the debate about euthanasia. This theory holds that individuals actions should always be guided by reason. For instance, it is morally wrong to stop somebody without a good reason. Honesty is the general rule, but it is subject to many exceptions given that people live in a pragmatic society. Euthanasia is a controversial topic as it entails several moral dilemmas that demand careful consideration due to its immediate and future consequences. Based on the aforementioned concept, this paper adopts the theory of moral rationalism to develop the direction of arguments. This paper will argue that based on reason and the state of medical advancement in contemporary times, there is no need for mercy killing, and thus euthanasia should not be tolerated.

Moral rationalism

Moral rationalist theories argue that human beings behavior is guided by reason. Also, these theories, which are also commonly referred to as ethical rationalism, are based on the practical reason that entails determining how to achieve ones objectives. Moreover, the theories dictate the objectives that should be prioritized. In this perspective, immoral actions should not be mistaken as contradicting beliefs, but a conflict in the will. This assertion explains why some people will take opposing choices since practical reasoning can be objective as well as universal. Human behavior largely comes from the moral rational choices that human beings make in life. This theory addresses the question of why human beings should be moral. When solving various ethical issues, it can be shown that morally rational behavior leads to ethical deportment during practice. For example in the case of euthanasia, medical practitioners have to act morally because it is simply out of reason that they have to act so. Human beings rely on the available evidence to generate beliefs about life and goals that should be attained, and thus the use of reason leads to success in these objectives. This theory has direct relevance to ethical issues; hence, it is necessary to examine how reason is applicable in solving some of the persisting debates on ethical dilemmas.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia or mercy killing is a situation where someone is terminally ill with the disease and s/he can determine his/her fate either voluntarily or via an accomplice. The process of mercy killing takes various forms such as administering lethal injections, ending treatment, or isolation. Euthanasia is of different kinds, which include voluntary euthanasia, whereby the procedure is advanced with the consent and expressed desire of the victim. Second is non-voluntary euthanasia whereby the practice is conducted when the victim is incapacitated to make a decision or s/he needs to be protected from him/herself. Last is the involuntary euthanasia when the procedure is done against the will of the victim. Deliberate advancement of a patients death by whichever form has no justifiable benefit to that person. A let live decision should be the debate since medical technology has greatly advanced and research is still ongoing to find cures for the terminal diseases. Although the doctors code of ethics does not support mercy killing, it remains a controversy, which no doctor has shown the ability to do away with in practice. Moral contradiction develops when people fail to understand that patients calling for mercy killing are simply asking for help, which can be granted through counseling or advanced treatment.

Moral rationalist perspective regarding euthanasia

In the modern world, people face various circumstances that influence their natural functioning, thus making them act irrationally at times. In many cases, people encounter systematic biases that cause errors in reasoning, which means that humans are not always morally rational. This assertion explains why rationality becomes very vital and unavoidable when someone decides to act morally upright. If ones objective is to do well, the best way to achieving that is through reason as well as facts to establish what works well concerning humanitarianism. This assertion suggests that moral rationalists disagree with mercy killing since effective reasoning should try to set aside all biases and offer a solution that gives the best to human life. This aspect means that decisions that individuals make in life should only target to eliminate suffering by providing cures and giving hope to those who are terminally ill. Encouraging mercy killing will offer no solution to future similar cases, but insisting on life motivates researchers to work hard because they must meet.

Individuals weigh the value of certain choices based on how they affect their life, families, and everybody in the world. Even if higher authorities initiate rules that need to be followed, the human response will still rely on reason based on the needs of humanity. In this case, rationalists will argue that it is not moral to kill a person even when s/he is terminally ill not only because this person has the right to life, but also because medication is determined to better the human condition and make death as humane as possible. Ethical decisions should always be based on protecting human life rather than the alleged needs and motives of certain entities or powers. For example, supporters of euthanasia argue that it is necessary because it saves resources and frees up hospital space. If terminally ill patients voluntarily express the desire for mercy killing, it does not necessarily mean that they want to die. It depends on how the people responsible for reason and makes decisions act. Crying for mercy killing is essentially a call for counseling or advanced treatment. As moral beings, nobody should take to his/her responsibility to take the life of which s/he did not provide in the first place. Simply because authorities want to free beds for other patients purported to show the desire to live is not enough reason to let anyone die. Furthermore, these patients can be treated at home at the same time allowing researchers to work miracles and possibly determine the cure for such diseases. To describe the treatment for the terminally ill as a waste of precious medical resources amounts to immorality.

Human beings practice their moral ethics within a practical and conflicting world rather than a utopian state. In medical practice, moral dilemmas often arise and making rational choices becomes complex albeit necessary. Moral situations such as euthanasia require a keen examination of immediate and future implications whilst considering the possible alternatives. Seeking a life that enhances the common good has never been easy neither establishing the desirable choices. Thus, when people show concern to a rationalized approach like protecting life, they are demonstrating their commitment to do well despite what it takes in such a complex world. For instance, those who support voluntary euthanasia argue that every individual has a right to choose and all should respect that choice. Every adult can make own decisions on life and death. However, such rights deny people the opportunity to choose for others. If mercy killing is legalized, then people who see themselves as victims will feel targeted by this legislation and end up taking options that they would have not wished to take. If a terminally ill person undergoes a treatment that costs huge amounts of money for the family or the government, s/he will feel that s/he is a burden, and thus s/he may end up choosing euthanasia. As moral beings, people should not be allowed to have such an option because it compromises the freedom of choice for the victim.

Conclusion

Moral rationalists reckon the value of human reason and with the experience of the benefits of human creativity in the science of medicine, it is necessary to take part in protecting life by embracing the moral influence of new technologies. This assertion implies that it is better to fight through the pain and give modern medicine technology a chance to work its miracles and probably a cure might be discovered. Approaching life from a moral perspective entails using reason and evidence to meet the needs of everyone. Allowing voluntary euthanasia gives doctors unnecessary powers and this aspect can be an insurmountable challenge to ethical matters when doctors choose to ignore ethical obligations. Terminally ill people are as well guided by reason and if they are compelled to feel guilt, they will choose death over life. However, it should be in the best interest of all humanity to prohibit any form of euthanasia.

Background and Introduction

The problem of euthanasia and other life-terminating procedures is one of the most contradictive points in the frame of the bioethics debates. Social attitudes toward the problem have changed significantly throughout the past decades. Whereas the question is rather complicated from the legal perspective, its ethical implications seem to be even more ambiguous. In the meantime, recent research reveals that with the legalization of end-of-life practices in some European countries, such as Belgium and Netherlands, more and more people tolerate the idea of euthanasia, and physicians gradually get used to the fact that they might need to meet ones request to terminate their life (Chambaere, Stichele, Mortier, Deliens, & Cohen, 2015).

In the meantime, a large percentage of healthcare specialists are still taken aback by the prospects of terminating someones life, particularly in those cases when a patient is in a coma so that there is no possibility of receiving his or her consent. As such, healthcare specialists face a critical challenge when asked to perform this procedure for a patient whose chances for recovery are close to naught. To make this crucial decision, it is necessary to evaluate all the arguments both for and against the forced life termination.

Pros

On the one hand, every person has a right to choose whether to terminate their life or to continue living. In the case where a client is in a comma, the responsibility for making this decision is naturally transmitted to the family. The main role of a doctor is to provide them with all the information essential for a grounded decision. Therefore, if the clients relatives decide that euthanasia or any other procedure is the best alternative, a doctor does not bear any ethical or moral responsibility for this decision. From this standpoint, the agreement to carry out this procedure is a mere fulfillment of the assigned responsibilities that involve meeting the clients demands.

Cons

Moreover, the major part of the negative response to euthanasia and other end-of-life procedures is determined by the fact that these interventions are considered to be equal to killing the person in a coma while there is still some chance for his or her survival. In the meantime, it is likewise important to analyze the question from a qualitative perspective. Otherwise stated, the non-voluntary termination of life is unethical.

However, the state of a coma should not be equaled to the state of normal life since the quality of the former state is significantly poorer. Besides, research reveals that the recovery process, even if it begins, does not normally signify a complete recovery; instead, it commonly involves severe mental impairment and other functional disorders (Honeybul & Ho, 2011). As such, it might be concluded that the termination of the condition that is characterized as life but is only perfunctory can be characterized as ethical.

Furthermore, the scope of a doctors responsibilities involves providing the medical care essential for improving a clients health or condition. Otherwise stated, healthcare specialists are expected to cure their clients. The diagnosis of irreversible coma is commonly interpreted as the lack of prospects for further improvement (Keown, 2002). In other words, the state of a prolonged coma can be regarded as a state of a prolonged death. From this perspective, a doctor that continues to provide the client with the essential procedures is involuntarily prolonging the process of a clients death. In this frame, the decision to terminate this process appears to be ethical since the client no longer needs the doctors services.

On the other hand, a healthcare specialist does not have a moral right to make decisions for the patient if the latter is unable to express his or her will. The state of a coma does not change the clients status. As such, Keown (2002) notes that the primary responsibility of a healthcare specialist is to provide the essential set of care services. The termination of life, especially its non-voluntary form, cannot be included in this set.

From a professional perspective, a healthcare specialist is supposed to fulfill the assigned responsibilities and attend to the clients needs as long as this is required. Additionally, it is essential to note that the right to life is an inherent right that every person, notwithstanding their social or health status, is entitled to enjoy. Since the patient is in a coma state and cannot protect this right, a doctor is responsible for advocating for the clients right to live. In this frame, it is unethical to agree to perform an end-of-life procedure since it is beyond the scope of a doctors responsibilities.

Second, it is unethical to agree to perform euthanasia from a religious standpoint. Thus, a healthcare specialist might be unable to meet the relatives request for a patients euthanasia due to religious beliefs and spirituality. Thus, from a social perspective, euthanasia and other end-of-life procedures might be interpreted as a medical intervention. In the meantime, from a religious standpoint, such procedures are considered equivalent to murder. The latter, in turn, is regarded as a capital sin. Research reveals that a large percentage of doctors admit that their negative attitude toward life-terminating interventions is determined by their religious commitment (McCormack, Clifford, & Conroy, 2011).

Finally, the relatives decision to perform euthanasia or other end-of-life procedures is commonly determined by their reliance on the professional competence of the doctors that have arrived at diagnosis such as irreversible coma. As such, a doctor that agrees to meet the relatives demand and carry out the procedure needs to provide a valid guarantee that the diagnosis is correct, which is almost impossible in the real-time environment. Practice shows that doctors assessments are not always accurate, and clients frequently recover from a coma state despite the pessimism of the medical community (Furness, 2012). From this perspective, it is unethical to decide in favor of an end-of-life procedure on the condition that there are at least minimal chances for a patients survival.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the list of arguments both against and in favor of end-of-life procedures can be further extended. Each alternative has its rationale supported by strong and persuasive evidence. Therefore, while deciding to terminate ones life, it is, first and foremost, important to realize the scope of responsibility that is associated with this decision. As such, there seems to be no right alternative that a healthcare specialist can use to remain on the ethical side. The selected option depends largely on the individual peculiarities of a doctor, his or her religious beliefs, and the ideological paradigm. From a professional perspective, it is primarily important that this decision is not driven by any unethical motives such as vested interest or financial incentives.

Reference List

Chambaere, K., Stichele, R. V., Mortier, F., Deliens, L., & Cohen, J. (2008). Recent trends in euthanasia and other end-of-life practices in Belgium. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(1), 1179-1181.

Furness, H. (2012). Miracle recovery of teen declared brain dead by four doctors. The Telegraph. Web.

Honeybul, S., & Ho, K. M. (2011). Long-term complications of decompressive craniectomy for head injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 28(6), 929-935.

Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McCormack, R., Clifford, M., & Conroy, M. (2012). Attitudes of UK doctors towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A systematic literature review. American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine, 26(1), 23-33.

The term Euthanasia originates from a Greek word, which means painless death or good death (McDougall and Gorman 66). The process aims to reduce the suffering and lifetime of a patient through medical monitoring. It is a very controversial subject that involves moral and ethical principles. Besides, it is unacceptable to some people, regions, and cultures. The practice is only allowed in a few countries. The main aim is to reduce the lifetime of a patient who is terminally ill.

It is synonymous with aiding someone end his/her life. Some cultures abhor euthanasia and consider it as a homicide. In some places, it is already allowed legally. Advocates of this practice believe that every human being has the right to choose whether to live or not and in serious cases such as terminal illness, some patients prefer to end their lives in a painless way.

Generally, people who are against euthanasia are perceived to be religious, and as such, they adhere to the principle that only God can take away the life of a person. They believe that physicians should not interfere with Gods will (Varelius, 230).

When Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor that had no cure, doctors said she would have just six months to live. One of his first decisions was to change her home in San Francisco to Oregon. The change happened because the latter state had pioneered the adoption of a law allowing assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Brittany later committed suicide.

Since 1997, doctors in Oregon State have been prescribing lethal drugs to patients with a lucid maximum prognosis of six months. According to records cited by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), 1,173 people have already applied for these drugs through the Death with Dignity Act (Act for Death with Dignity), but only 752 patients have used them to die (Ethics Guide par. 4).

The average age of the patients, however, is far above the 29-year old Maynard who opted for euthanasia. Most of those who applied for euthanasia did it at an average age of 71 years.

Pioneering Oregon in the subject of euthanasia portrays a sad state of affairs when doctors can transform their noble role of treating patients to actually killing them. At the age of 83, a merciless Oregon Doctor had helped at least 130 terminally ill patients to die in several places within the United States. However, his first patient (a teacher of pre-school) lived and died just in Oregon. Janet Adkins suffered from Alzheimers and ended her life on 4th June 1990 with the help of Kevorkian, who came to be held responsible soon after the death.

It is apparent that the action was wrong. Outside the United States, a few other countries have specific laws support f euthanasia. These include the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany. There are isolated reported cases registered in Uruguay and Colombia. It is against this backdrop that this essay argues that euthanasia should not be legalized because it contravenes the moral principles, human dignity, and basic sanctity of life.

The only way that the current laws cannot prefer punishment against an individual is when a patient absolutely resolves to kill himself/herself. However, subjecting another person to death on the basis of mercy killing is controversial and in some cases, punishable by law (Jones 401). As much as the subject of euthanasia seems to be gaining ground, only a few countries have legalized it. This is a clear indication that it is a wrong practice that proponents are trying as much as possible to fix into the moral standards of society.

At a global level, there is a huge resistance to the adoption of a law to authorize euthanasia. Why should it then be compelled in the face of humanity when a negligible percentage of the world is supporting it? There is a deep mistrust of the motivations that fuel euthanasia. Most of the debates to legalize the practice is driven by selfish interest of introducing unpopular legislations.

Proponents of euthanasia should deeply reflect the issue and question the criteria of inevitable and imminent death, the criterion of the irreversibility of the patients condition as well as the criterion for an incurable disease. As a matter of fact, what is incurable today may have some cure tomorrow. Whatever is irreversible today can be reversed the next day.

It is possible to prolong or postpone the timing of the death of an individual by avoiding euthanasia. There are indefinite health factors that doctors and general humanity cannot determine within a short span. Hence, taking away someones life in the pretext of alleviating their pain is a premature decision that can end life when someone still has several months ahead to live and possibly recover fully.

We also need to investigate the sanctity of human life before opting for euthanasia. Even at the point of death, human life is still useful, productive, valuable, sacred, and sanctified (Jotterand 108). The fact that we may not have time or patience to care and treat our patients does not imply that people under pain should be exposed to death. It is pertinent to note that the foundation of euthanasia is to take away the pain being experienced by a patient.

However, this notion is completely paradoxical since even people who are healthy enough often undergo various forms of pain on a daily basis. You may be physically well and healthy but emotionally drained and in full pain. Why should we eliminate people who are in emotional or psychological pain?

Have we lost our conscience and detached the value embedded in the sanctity of human life? These are terse questions that should perhaps provide major pointers against euthanasia. Life is a natural and precious gift that should be preserved and safeguarded at all costs.

Countries that have legalized euthanasia risk breeding high-tech criminals who traffic human organs. Any sick maybe a ready target for euthanasia. Once they have been killed, their organs are trafficked. In fact, trafficking human organs is a grim reality in both the developed and developing world. Where would be the dignity of human life when body organs are turned into quick cash?

Besides, euthanasia is rarely conducted upon the request of a patient. In most known cases, a patient is silently killed as the last option of the treatment process. It is indeed morally wrong to go against the wish of a patient even if the person is on the verge of death. If patients can be consulted before mercy killing, then euthanasia would have a completely different impression in society (Rollo 36).

Every individual has the right to life as enshrined in our constitutions. Even law offenders are hardcore criminals are still protected by the same legislations unless they prove to be a major threat to the lives of other people. Since when did a person under gross pain become a dangerous offender to be killed without his or her knowledge? Aggressive therapy for patients who are extremely ill can still improve health and extend the life of an individual.

On the other hand, it is prudent to acknowledge other bodies of evidence that support euthanasia. Individuals and pressure groups that agitate for the legalization of marijuana argue that quite often, the pain which most patients go through may be impossible to alleviate (Kingsbury par. 3). Medical doctors may have tried the best they can without any success. Hence, they are only left with the option of euthanasia. Second, the end of life is usually marked by suffering. Therefore, a human being is free to decide his/her own dignity.

This implies that the decision to live or die rests in the hands of a suffering patient. Proponents also reiterate that euthanasia is widespread since it was hardly done in public glare. They equate euthanasia to abortion. The latter is practiced frequently in jurisdictions that abhor it. Hence, euthanasia should be legalized to prevent the current hypocrisy and also allow patients to die with dignity. Finally, the legalization of euthanasia cannot breach the freedom of individuals if a written request is obtained from a patient.

Conclusion

To recap it all, euthanasia stands out as a major violation of human dignity and the sanctity of life advanced by nature. From the above analysis, it is evident that patients are rarely consulted before euthanasia is carried out. Even in a case whereby a patient requests for euthanasia, we still have the moral, spiritual, and physical responsibility to safeguard the endangered life. Aggressive therapy, guidance, and counseling are among the broad alternatives that can prolong the life of a hopeless patient.

Works Cited

Ethics Guide 2014. Web.

Jones, David Albert. Is there a Logical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Nonvoluntary Euthanasia? Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal 21.4 (2011): 379-404. Print.

Jotterand, Fabrice. Review of John Griffiths, Heleen Weyers and Maurice Adams, Euthanasia and Law in Europe. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008. HEC Forum 21.1 (2009): 107-11. Print.

Kingsbury, Kathleen. A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia. 2008. Web.

McDougall, Jennifer Fecio and Martha Gorman. Euthanasia: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2008. Print.

Rollo, Andrew. Gone Too Soon? When Ethics and Euthanasia Conflict. Veterinary Economics 55.7 (2014): 36. Print.

Varelius, Jukka. Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and the Right to do wrong. HEC Forum 25.3 (2013): 229-243. Print.

Advancements in philosophy and ethics and growth in the understanding of pain in the medical context form the theoretical basis for discussions of euthanasia in todays society. Euthanasia (also known as mercy killing) is one of the options its proponents would like terminally ill patients to have. This paper considers the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the deliberate termination of life with the intention of relieving a patient from pain and suffering (Youngner and Kimsma 2). Proponents of euthanasia believe that it is unethical to keep a patient alive if the patient is constantly in pain, and has no reasonable prospect of recovery.

Such a condition may arise from an accident or a terminal illness such as cancer. Under these circumstances, the proponents advocate for mercy killing to relieve the patient from pain. After all, the medical profession exists mainly to alleviate the pain and suffering of the human body.

The ethical issues surrounding euthanasia vary based on the specific circumstances of each case (Rogers and Braunack-Mayer 42). If a patient is conscious and is capable of making his own decisions, euthanasia becomes a personal choice (voluntary euthanasia). On the other hand, if a patient is in a vegetative state or is incapable of rational decision-making, the ethical dilemmas of euthanasia become more complex.

The most important ethical dilemma related to euthanasia that medical practitioners face is the question of the right to life. The right to life is a universally accepted principle guarded by law in almost all countries. People who can ethically take away life are law enforcement officers in circumstances where there is a threat to the lives of others, or where a court sentences someone to death. Most countries do not even allow individuals to take away their own life.

The sanctity of life is a universally accepted principle, and anyone who takes away life without just cause is a murderer. This complicates the work of medical workers who handle terminally ill patients, especially those who are in a lot of pain. These medical workers must work through their own convictions about the sanctity of life. Even if such workers conclude that there may be circumstances where euthanasia is the right intervention, they must still deal with the overall ethical argument regarding the sanctity of life, regardless of its quality.

The second source of ethical conflict regarding euthanasia is a pain. Medical care providers usually aim at restoring a patients health and whole being. A patient who goes to the hospital for treatment usually receives medical interventions to deal with the disease and to reduce pain. Painkillers usually numb pain while the other medicines eliminate the disease from the body. In some cases, medical workers are clear from the onset that they cannot do much for a patient.

They cannot get rid of the disease, and they cannot relieve the patients pain. If the prognosis of a patient is gloomy, medical care providers may find it more compassionate to administer euthanasia. For instance, a patient whose condition has severely deteriorated to the extent that the doctors have run out of options may be better off dying rather than living in pain.

This also applies to patients who have lost all consciousness and have no chance of waking up. In these cases, medical workers find themselves in ethical dilemmas on whether to administer involuntary euthanasia (Youngner and Kimsma 4).

Finally, each person has a right to life. If someone is in a prolonged coma and has no reasonable prospect of regaining consciousness, do medical workers, and family members have a moral right to decide on this persons fate without his participation? In other words, is involuntary euthanasia ethical? (Youngner and Kimsma 4) These issues influence current thinking on euthanasia.

Works Cited

Rogers, Wendy A and Annette J Braunack-Mayer. Practical Ethics for General Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Youngner, Stuart J and Gerrit K Kimsma. Physician-Assisted Death in Perspective: Assessing the Dutch Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.

Is it possible to find the relief in the life which is full of pain and agony for those people who suffer from serious diseases and have only a little chance to get rid of their suffering? In his work, Garn LeBaron accentuates that the way people deal with and respond to issues of life, ritual, and death serves to shape the nature of our society.

This is why society must attempt to decide what is right (LeBaron). What is right when we speak about the problem of euthanasia? This controversial question is widely discussed by many scholars who emphasize two absolutely opposite visions of this ethical issue with inclining to the rejection of the euthanasias principles. However, it is not rationally to concentrate only on negative aspects of euthanasia because for many people it is the opportunity to cease their overwhelming sufferings.

If we analyze euthanasia as the human right to choose the death according to peoples will, it seems to have a lot of similarities with a suicide completed with the help of doctors. Is it ethically? People commit suicides when there are no more abilities to bear sufferings of different kinds. It is their right which depends only on their personal visions of their lives.

People can want to choose euthanasia when there are no more abilities to bear the pain or their life is only a morbid survival. Where is the difference? According to LeBaron, the individual has certain rights guaranteed under the law and the Constitution that allow them to choose when they can die and moreover, individual liberty is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, and that the right to privacy protects the right of an individual to choose to die (LeBaron).

Thus, if a man has different human rights which are protected and supported by the law, which can be associated with the peculiarities of health care system and medical treatment, which accentuate the persons possibility to choose the life that he or she lives, this man can have the same right to choose the death as the chance to get rid of suffering. It can be more morally for our society than to observe other peoples agonies and to hear their appeals to relieve their torments.

There are also many aspects of the problem which are connected with the problems which the long medical treatment can cause to the patient and to his family. People must have the chance to choose the way they will be treated according to the real perspectives for their recovery.

Every day people suffer from unbearable pain and terrible conditions of their life, and they do not see the opportunities for changing the situation. The details of each case should be discussed separately, but the possibility to use euthanasia should exist in society because it can be the only way to act morally in relation to people who want to die.

Moreover, there are different kinds of euthanasia including active and passive methods of its realization. These methods should be chosen by the patient or by the members of his family according to his medical state. Doctors should not be considered as killers because of the usage of euthanasia.

It is just one of the aspects of their everyday work. Today, those people who cannot bear their sufferings anymore try to commit suicides, and those ones who cannot do the same because of their physical state only dream of it. Why is it impossible to give them such a chance?

If some methods of euthanasia are considered as too severe, there are different kinds of palliative treatment. Garn LeBaron states that theologically and morally it is acceptable for a patient to choose palliative treatments that may result in death and for a physician to administer potentially lethal analgesia in the relief of pain (LeBaron). Therefore, euthanasia which is hidden behind palliative treatments can be more satisfactory for society because of those slight methods which are used for it.

However, many opponents of euthanasia determine the ethical issue of the phenomenon with references to the religious aspect. They focus on the idea that God gives life to people, and it is only his right to allow their dying. Suicide is a sin, and euthanasia is a sin because it is a murder. Nevertheless, the religious aspect of the problem can have no sense for those people who do not share these religious theories. It is a personal right to believe or not, and it is a personal right to choose life or death.

The issue of euthanasia has a lot of aspects which are necessary to be discussed. The ethical aspect depends on the problem of human rights and the personal choice. Today our society is inclined to discuss the phenomenon of euthanasia as the immoral question which rejects the principles of ethics and religion.

However, if we look at the problem from the other side, it is possible to notice that the questions of morality and ethics will be connected with euthanasia as the social obligation to give the chance for relief to those people who suffer every day of their life.

Works Cited

LeBaron, Garn. n.d. The Ethics of Euthanasia. Web.

I find it truly a coincidence that more than 5 years ago, I found myself in the same position that Susan Wolf had found herself in with regards to her fathers End Of Life case. My situation pertained to the end of life care of an elderly aunt who had no other family and because of that, she became a part of my own family. She was, fully reliant and dependent on me in so many ways due to her advanced age. I thought that she was a very healthy person and could go on living forever since she was under constant medical care. But all the medical care that the doctors could provide for her could not remove the pain that ravaged her aging body.

It was because of that pain that led my mother and I to bring her to a Chinese holistic healer who treated her with some sort of secret Chinese medical injection. The clinic was clean and the instruments seemed to be of clinical grade quality. I had no idea that by bringing her to this doctor we would be opening the gateway to death for her. The injections were supposed to be administered twice a month. However, on the second injection, she developed an uncontrollable fever and could no longer get out of bed without assistance. She was hospitalized that weekend.

She had Sepsis, a disease more commonly known as blood poisoning and it had spread throughout her blood, there was no way she could be saved. She was going to die a slow and painful death due to the slow infection ravaging her body. We did not hide the fact that she was given a diagnosis that she would be going home a vegetable, if she ever made it out alive. She made her decision that day, she wanted to go home.She was already bedridden by that point and in need of constant palliative care.

My life and the lives of those around me were upturned by the unexpected events. Nobody could go on with their regular lives. We all lived to serve her and make sure she was comfortable until her final hour of consciousness with us.She was constantly being injected with antibiotics that did not seem to do much to control the infection or pain. Later on, she began choking on her food, even a drink of water seemed to drown her. A feeding tube was then attached in order to keep her fed and hydrated.

But everything that we were doing for her was for naught. During one particularly painful episode, she called me to her side and asked me Can you help me die? I was dumbstruck. I never thought that this woman, who lived through the horrors of life and helped raise me as a child would ever get to such a low point in her own life. I did not know how to answer her and chose to ignore the question.

I pretended it was a joke instead. If I had only known then that she was going to slip into a coma and be turned into a pin cushion as the home doctors visit turned into a poking and prodding session that, I could was hurting her a lot.

She may have been in a coma and unable to open her eyes or utter a word, but her face still managed to contort in pain when her IV needles were replaced or her feeding tube went down the wrong pipe and had to be reinserted. I would then remember what were almost her final words to me: Can you help me die? It was then that I turned to her sister, my mother and told her of my aunts request while she was still living.

I asked her what we were doing all of these things for? We knew she was never going to pull out of the coma, her system was already failing, she could no longer be given enough liquid food or water to keep up her nourishment. She had developed comatose diabetes and was getting insulin shots as well. Why were we torturing someone who had no chance of survival? Why did we not choose to let her go? Let her broken body rest. No amount of palliative care would ever be enough. We needed to learn to appease our guilty conscience some other way.

The doctors understood what we wanted to do and why. They agreed that the end of the road had come and death was imminent. With their approval, we stopped giving her the medications, the liquid nutrition, and hydration on the day that her breathing had turned into some sort of gurgling sound, a sign of impending demise we were told. She died before 2 AM the next day.

It must be pretty obvious by now that I agree with the EOL decision that Ms. Wolf had come to on her fathers behalf. There are just times when the spirit may be willing but the body is simply too weak to go on and trying to hang on would only result in torturing the spirit of the patient. I believe that every person had the right to die with dignity, on his or her own terms. I believe that her father was right to choose when and how he was going to die because that gave him a sense of comfort in a way.

Knowing that the pain would finally come to an end and he would finally be at peace. When a person has come to terms with his death, I am of the opinion that he is then in a position to choose how to die. Sure it may be painful and unacceptable to the family and others concerned.

But then again, we are not the ones who are truly having to live the nightmare that the patient is going through. So who are we to judge? What I disagree with in Ms. Wolfs article is where the father died. Ms. Wolf said, He was out of the ICU now, in a hospital room awaiting transfer to hospice. (2008) He died in a hospice, not surrounded by all his family members. A dying person takes comfort in being in familiar surroundings as he fades away. That is what my aunt told me when she chose to go home. I also do not understand why she had to leave her fathers bedside when she knew that he was going to fade into the night permanently on that night.Ms. Wolf (2008) related that:

I struggled, remembering the rabbis caution that the ones we love most may need permission to leave us, to die. I know you may have to leave before I get back. Thats okay. It felt nearly impossible to let him go. My chest was bursting. The pain was crushing. When I finally left, I was working to breathe. Taking one step then another. Breaking down, collecting myself, breaking down again. He died not long after.

It was the final act of a loving daughter for her dying father, be there to seem him off into the light. She owed him at least that. As Xayne (2011) explains,

If I am going to die, I would rather it be under my own terms, I have learned a long time ago that losing a loved one even to cancer it is not easy to do. Assisted suicide is, while not a moral, it is often more likely to be something a person would choose not something that is thrust upon them. 

In the end Euthanasia is not something that should be frowned upon or looked at as a crime. Instead, it should be looked upon as a final act of respect for the human being who lived his life well and now knows that it is time to set his life to an end.

References

Wolf, Susan. (2008). Confronting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: My fathers death. Hastings Center Report. 38(5), 23-26. Retrieved from EBSCO Host Database located at the Ashford Online Library.

Xayne, Angelus Mykeal. (2011). Assisted Suicide. EzineMark.com. Web.

Introduction

He had been in the hospital for eight months now. Visits to the hospital where my grandfather had been admitted were one of the most painful experiences that I have ever had. I knew that he was undergoing extreme mental and physical pain. I had painfully watched my grandfathers health deteriorate ultimately bringing him to the state where he was only living to endure pain with no hope.

The Doctor had said that all attempts of recovery were now futile. I could sometimes watch him scream because of the extreme pain that he was enduring. As I often watched my grandfather closely, I could confirm that the once enthusiastic face was gradually losing interest in life and had instead been reduced to a shell of suffering from no confidence, hope, or self-esteem. It even reached a point where he was not even able to recognize friends and relatives including me, his favorite grandson.

We now had to make this difficult decision to end his life and relieve him of all the pain that he was undergoing. I remember standing beside my grandfather as the doctor cut off the oxygen supply. He struggled shortly before stiffening with a weak smile on his face. Although this happened five years ago, the memories are still vivid in my mind. I knew and I have always known that we made the right decision for our grandfather as a family. (Grisez & Boyle 451)

Mercy Killing

Mercy killing relieves suffering and pain not just to the patient but also to friends and family. As I had said, my grandfather was enduring extreme mental and physical pain which had reduced him to someone who was only living to endure this suffering with no hope at all. This pain was unnecessary since it was not leading to any good and hence was not worth enduring. My grandfather was struggling to breathe even with oxygen tubes on his nostrils.

In short, we were forcing him to live. To live for what purpose? The truth is that we were doing all these because we were afraid to lose our grandfather. One can therefore argue that we were keeping our grandfather here with us for our selfish purposes. Our fear of losing him overlooked the great pain that he was undergoing- a pain that he was undergoing as we forced him to continue living. This was causing more harm than good not just to him but also to us. We were living in denial that the time for my grandfather had come. (Heifetz & Mangel 158)

Apart from my personal experience, I still remember the emotional strain that the whole experience brought to my mother. From the look of things, I knew that my mother was devastated but I never knew the extent of the devastation until I recently interviewed her. During the interview, my mother opened up and told me that months after my grandmother was gone she could burst into tears in the most unlikely places like board meetings.

In a way, my mother blamed herself for my grandfathers death since she figured that if she had not taken the decision, he would still have been alive. However, she also informed me that she had felt worse the moment she saw him grimacing in pain and knew that the condition was permanent. My mother confessed that she was on the verge of breaking up with my father since he felt that she had taken her grief too far.

This made me realize that although it is not bad to mourn or endure emotional pain because of a loved one that is in such kind of suffering, it is true that we can sometimes make this process unnecessarily longer. This not only increases the duration of emotional suffering for us but can also increase the magnitude of pain for us. We are in danger of becoming disillusioned and ignoring important areas of our lives because our lives have unnecessarily stopped. (Jenkins 125)

Apart from my experience and my mothers, the third interview I was able to glean left me in tears. According to this person called Cliff, his pal George had been working underneath his car and the car came squashing down on him. While repairing the car, it fell on his head smashing his cranium, the torso cavity, breaking his both arms and irreparably damaged his hip joints. Cliff told me that George was discovered hours later but was still breathing.

After he was found, he was rushed to the nearby hospital where the doctors declared that despite the weak pulse George was brain dead and only had a 10% chance of living. Determined to keep George around, the family decided to take the 10% chance and so George remained in a life support machine in a vegetable state for 3 months. After three months, Georges condition had deteriorated and they only sat waiting for his final moment. After a moment of prayer, the family signed the obligatory paperwork and allowed the doctor to begin the euthanasia process. (Manning 96)

From my experience, my mothers and Cliffs experience, it is obvious that the people who support euthanasia do it from a heart of care because they believe that they are ending extreme suffering for their loved one. This loved one is more precious than what their pockets could give or their finances could buy. Although they have given all these wholeheartedly, it has not eased suffering for their loved one but it has increased it.

Since the objective has not been realized for the one they love, they now have to painfully meet the objective of ending suffering for their loved one by ending his/her life. Ironically, those who are unwilling to adopt mercy killing can be described as selfish since they are just postponing the death of a loved one who has to endure extreme pain just because they want him/her to stay around. (Grisez & Boyle 500)

Conclusion

Throughout history, euthanasia has been a controversial topic. Despite the many theories surrounding this subject, it is obvious that is executed when someone is enduring extreme pain and suffering with no hope of improving. Another truth is that keeping such a person alive is just postponing a reality and that it will just drain our efforts and resources in vain. Several moral questions arise concerning mercy killing.

By following such moral ideals, we are likely to find ourselves in a labyrinth lined with uncertainties whether what we are doing is good for a patient and us. We would then be acting in pretense to preserve our moral egos instead of accepting facts and realities that are with us. The reality is that someone is already dead and that we are just increasing and prolonging his/her pain and our pain by keeping him/her alive.

Works Cited

Grisez, Germain, & Boyle, Joseph. Life and death with liberty and justice: a contribution to the euthanasia debate, 1975. University of Notre Dame Press, 451-521. Print.

Heifetz, Milton. & Mangel, Charles. The Right to Die, 1975. Toronto: Longman Canada Limited, 158-245. Print.

Jenkins, Joe. Contemporary moral issues; Examining Religions Series, 2002. Heinemann, 125-205. Print.

Manning, Michael. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: killing or caring?, 1998. Paulist Press, 96-120. Print.