Category: Euthanasia

Introduction

The terms euthanasia, mercy killing, and physician-assisted suicide are used interchangeably. They refer to a way of painlessly terminating ones life with the humane motive of ending his/her suffering (Augestad et al. 707). The debate on euthanasia touches on morality and the essence of being human. The issue of euthanasia is widely renowned such that even individuals with limited knowledge in the field of bioethics understand it. According to Augestad et al., euthanasia has been in existence since ancient Rome and Greece (709). The introduction of the Hippocratic School led to the abolishment of the practice. Most Christians argue that the practice is against Bible teachings. Today, numerous philosophical foundations help to understand the concept of euthanasia. The foundations contribute to the current support and opposition to the practice. Before administering euthanasia, it is imperative to consider factors such as the patients wishes and condition, quality of life, and the sick persons independence and aptitude.

Philosophical Concepts

Three philosophical foundations form the background of euthanasia debate in modern technology-oriented medicine. They are human rights, deontological, and teleological foundations. The teleological perspective seeks to establish the motive of living. According to the perspective, human endeavors to live a quality life (Augestad et al. 712). The teleological approach considers quality life as one without suffering and characterized by healthy social relations, vigor, and wellbeing. The approach maintains that it is imperative to do all that it takes to ensure that a person has a dignified ending. Cohen et al. posit, The autonomy in which an individual shapes his/her life and self-determination by which one controls the circumstances are of vital significance (148). Therefore, euthanasia is justifiable if a persons life is in jeopardy.

The deontological approach aims at identifying peoples responsibilities towards their life as well as that of their colleagues. People must care for life and uphold it. As such, euthanasia and suicide are wrong since they defy the fundamental responsibility of defending life. Euthanasia goes against a persons value in the name of taking care of his/her welfare. A person cannot validate a moral obligation to take life (Cohen et al. 151). Thus, euthanasia is unjustifiable. People must preserve their life and that of others. Consequently, they should oppose any attempt to terminate life even in times of illness. The human rights approach does not establish circumstances that warrant death. Hence, no one has the right to authorize the termination of life. The human rights approach is against people waiving the right to life depending on their health condition. According to the approach, taking human life is unethical and violation of the core right to life.

Factors to Consider

Patients Health Situation and Wishes

The patient should be given the liberty to choose the necessary treatment at the end-of-life. The sick person should be the one to decide when death is the best option. Euthanasia is prevalent among cancer patients. Cancer patients go through excruciating pain. At times, they find the pain intolerable and request for physician-assisted suicide. According to Goldney, when the pain becomes unbearable, the high value attributed to life depreciates (117). As a result, the patients, as well as their relatives, start thinking about the alternative to life. Research shows that many patients would prefer to live despite suffering. Studies conducted in the United States, Australia, Canada, and England show that many patients, despite their health condition, prefer to live. People have a passion for life. Consequently, it is imperative to understand the wishes of the patient. If the physicians and relatives do not understand the wishes of the patient, it is imperative to assume that he/she would prefer to live. The doctors should endeavor to prolong the life of the patient but not administer euthanasia.

Quality of Life

A majority of the proponents of euthanasia use the quality of life to support their argument. The quality of life may have different meanings depending on the general social context (Goldney 121). For instance, job creation and environmental conservation may help to improve the quality of life. In the medical field, physicians may enhance the quality of life via rehabilitation, cosmetic treatment, physiotherapy, psychology, and palliative care among other means (Goldney 129). In the context of end-of-life, ethicists who advocate euthanasia misuse the phrase quality of life. Rather than enhancing a persons life, they seek to end it. They use the phrase quality of life to justify the practice of euthanasia. Most doctors and pro-life activists who are against euthanasia term the phrase quality of life as mischievous (McCormack et al. 76). They allege that it is subjective. Even though physicians may evaluate the quality of a particular life, they do not have the right to decide when to terminate a persons life. Doctors should allow the patients to decide on whether to continue living or die. A patients relatives and doctors should not determine when life becomes meaningless to the sick. On the other hand, no one should force a patient to live if he/she requests for physician-assisted suicide.

It does not imply that a life without human dignity, self-responsibility, and consciousness is of poor quality. Besides, it does not suggest that a life characterized by pain and suffering is inevitably void of worth. McCormack et al. argue that sick persons may decide that their life is void of quality due to the lack of particular features attributed to value (82). For instance, some patients may think that life typified by dementia and unconsciousness is meaningless. Conversely, patients undergoing incredible suffering may believe that their poise is intact despite the situation. Patients view life differently under different circumstances. Thus, it is imperative to consider the opinion of the patient before administering euthanasia. The patient should have the final say regarding the quality of his/her life.

Patients Independence and Competence

Doctors should allow a patient to determine whether to terminate his/her life or preserve it. Doctors ought to take a liberal position when dealing with patients. They should not prolong the life of patients who believe that doing so would adversely affect their dignity. In some situations, the patients are unable to make comprehensible and independent decisions due to their age, unconsciousness, or mental state. McLachlan claims that in cases where the sick people are not in a position to make independent decisions, doctors should check if they had initially stated their desire to prolong life (91).

If the patients had previously indicated that they had no wish to extend their life, the doctors should respect that decision. Once in a while, the patients express the desire to terminate their life if they become seriously ill. However, when that time comes, they show the willingness to cling to life. In such a situation, doctors should neglect the past decision. In a case where it is difficult to determine the patients past and present wishes, and the sick person does not demonstrate the zeal to live, the doctors should make decisions in consultation with the relatives of the patient (Sjostrand et al. 228). Doctors who are against euthanasia claim that there is no dignity in ending the life of a terminally-ill patient. They argue that killing is not one of the physicians responsibilities. Legalizing euthanasia would give every person the power to end life without considering the wishes of the patients.

Conclusion

Euthanasia helps to alleviate suffering amid terminally-ill patients. However, it is imperative to consider the interests of the patients before carrying out euthanasia. Doctors and relatives must listen to the wishes of the patients. The principle of democracy dictates that individuals have the power to determine what is right for them. As a result, doctors must show concern for the patients interests. Physicians and family members should give equal weight to the patients life and independence. Administering euthanasia is a matter of life and death. Consequently, it is important to exercise diligence. Doctors should take appropriate safety measures to make sure that they serve the interests and wishes of the patients. They should respect the patients independence and avoid predispositions to medical paternalism. Human life is of immense value and significance. Therefore, the decision to terminate life should be made with great care. Doctors should ensure that patients have adequate information about their health conditions to enable them to make informed decisions.

Works Cited

Augestad, Liv, et al. Time Trade-Off and Attitudes towards Euthanasia: Implications of Using Death as an Anchor in Health State Valuation. Quality of Life Research, vol. 22, no. 4, 2013, pp. 705-714.

Cohen, Joachim, et al. Public Acceptance of Euthanasia in Europe: A Survey Study in 47 Countries. International Journal of Public Health, vol. 59, no. 1, 2014, pp. 143-156.

Goldney, Robert. Neither Euthanasia nor Suicide, but Rather Assisted Death. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 46, no. 3, 2012, pp. 114-135.

McCormack, Ruaidhri, et al. Attitudes of UK Doctors towards Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Systematic Literature Review. Palliative Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, 2012, pp. 71-94.

McLachlan, Hugh. Moral Duties and Euthanasia: Why to Kill is not Necessarily the Same as to Let Die. Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 37, no. 12, 2014, pp. 87-103.

Sjostrand, Manne, et al. Autonomy-Based Arguments against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Critique. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, vol. 16, no. 2, 2013, pp. 225-230.

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.

Currently, many medical workers, scholars and journalists discuss the moral permissibility of euthanasia or assisted suicide of a person who suffers from an intolerable pain. More importantly, this issue can be of great relevance to patients and their families.

The key question is whether such a practice can be accepted from an ethical perspective. It is vital to examine various arguments in favor or against this practice. This essay will argue that people, who are dying in great pain, should be allowed voluntary euthanasia since it may the only available option. This is the main thesis that should be elaborated in more detail.

The arguments discussed in the paper will be based on the ideas introduced by Dan Brock and James Rachels who believe that a patient is not morally obliged to stay alive if his/her existence is full of suffering and there is no way of alleviating this suffering. Furthermore, a patient should be regarded as a person who can take informed and independent decisions that have to be respected or at least respected by healthcare professionals. This is the central premise underlying the thesis. The following arguments will rely on the ideas of Dan Brock and James Rachels.

One can make several points in order to support the idea of voluntary euthanasia. In particular, one can speak about a persons right to autonomy or self-determination and well-being (Brock 11). More importantly, the right to self-determination can be extended to manner or time of ones death (Brock 11).

This issue is particularly important for a person who wants to avoid suffering or preserve his/her dignity (Brock 11). Thus, by denying the right to voluntary euthanasia, medical workers deny a patient the right to self-determination as well as to dignity. Again, one should take into consideration that patients ask for euthanasia in those cases, when their suffering cannot be relieved in any way.

Additionally, one should note that euthanasia should not be confused with killing because unlike a murderer, a physician does not gain anything from assisting a patient with suicide (Rachels 66). Moreover, a healthcare professional does not force a person to end his/her life. This distinction is important for ethical justification of voluntary euthanasia. This term implies that a patient can take a rational and informed decision about his/her life.

Moreover, one should take into account that in most cases, people require euthanasia when they have a terminal illness. In this case, the word terminal suggests that the death of a patient is usually inevitable and medical workers can only prolong the acute pain of a person. Therefore, this time can be unbearable for a patient. Therefore, one can argue that it is unethical for medical workers to force people to stay alive when they do not want to. This is one of the main arguments that should be taken into account.

It is also important to mention that euthanasia is often applied to animals especially when there is no way of easing their pain. Under such circumstances, euthanasia can be regarded as an act of mercy and one can hardly say that it is immoral. Therefore, one can say that a human being should not be denied the right to the same mercy. Certainly, people may not like the idea of comparing a human being to an animal. Nevertheless, in both cases, they can suffer from excruciating pain.

Finally, one should mention that euthanasia can also relieve the suffering of the patients family. In many cases, these people have to cope with emotional distress, because they understand that their relatives or beloved are dying and they cannot help them in any way. This experience can be damaging for every person.

Very often, such moments can inflict an emotional trauma on an individual. Therefore, the relatives of a patient can also support the idea of voluntary euthanasia. These are the main arguments that can be used to defend the idea of suicide assisted by medical workers. It seems that these arguments should be considered by healthcare professionals and legislators.

Nevertheless, one should note that there are possible objections to the application of voluntary euthanasia. First of all, the legitimate status of euthanasia can result into a variety of discriminatory laws against people with disabilities who can be killed by the state. They can be denied the right to life. In other words, the legitimate status of assisted suicide can result in a variety of unethical practices. Thus, the supporters of voluntary euthanasia should be aware of this danger.

Secondly, the application of voluntary euthanasia should not be regarded as the only way of reducing the pain that a patient can experience. One should not forget about the existence of medication and various methods that can be used to help a person. Thus, healthcare professionals should focus on the improvement of their work, rather than moral justification of voluntary euthanasia.

Additionally, frequent application of euthanasia can justify the murder of patients in order to reduce the cost of healthcare. In other words, there is a possibility that healthcare organizations will actually support the idea of assisted suicide instead of helping patients overcome their emotional and physical pain. So, it is possible to say that legitimate standards of voluntary euthanasia can lower the ethical standards set for medical institutions. This is one of the problems that should not be overlooked.

It is also important to note that a persons intention to commit suicide can be partly explained by the depressed psychological state. The decision of a person can be attributed to a momentary impulse, and this decision to die can hardly be justified. Thus, medical workers should be able to distinguish an irreversible willingness to end ones life from a temporary weakness. This is one of the issues that should be kept in mind, especially by medical workers.

There is another reason why euthanasia is often criticized. In many cases, a patient cannot give consent to assisted suicide. For instance, a person can fall into coma and medical workers may not be able to help this patient. Under such circumstances, the relatives are the only people who have a right to take decisions about the life of a dying person. Therefore, the application of euthanasia may not always be voluntary.

Finally, one should mention that the opponents of euthanasia refer to religious beliefs about the sanctity of human life that can be regarded as a gift of God. Assisted suicide means that a person rejects this gift. So, religious people may not accept the arguments of favor of voluntary euthanasia. These objections are necessary because they urge medical workers to remember that their decisions can have far-reaching implications for various patients.

Overall, it is possible to provide several responses to these critical remarks. First of all, euthanasia should be seen only as a voluntary option that is available to a patient. It must not be regarded as an excuse for killing people. The advocates of euthanasia never try to support the idea that medical workers can kill a person against his/her will. It is the duty of policy-makers to make sure that this form assisted suicide is not used to justify murder. So, this distinction is critical for this discussion.

Furthermore, the opponents of assisted suicide forget that very often effective pain management is not possible. There are many cases when medical workers cannot offer any medication that can significantly reduce the suffering of a patient. In some cases, a person, who is dying in great pain, is simply helpless. This is one of the reasons why many healthcare professionals accept the idea of voluntary euthanasia.

The critics of assisted suicide are right in pointing out that a persons willingness to die can be explained by emotional state. It should be taken into consideration that the decision about euthanasia must never be taken on the spur of the moment. A patient should be informed about existing forms of treatment and ways of easing his/her pain.

More importantly, this person should have a sufficient amount of time in order to make this choice. In other words, this patient must be allowed to take an informed decision about euthanasia. Only in this case such a practice can be morally acceptable.

The opponents of assisted suicide believe that such a practice violates the sanctity of human life. Nevertheless, this life should not turn into continuous and unbearable pain that may completely drive people into insanity. It seems that the critics of euthanasia may not tolerate the idea that any person should doomed to this existence.

Furthermore, religious principles should be confused with medical ethics that emphasizes physical and emotional wellbeing of a patient. This is why religious criticism can hardly be relevant in this case. Nevertheless, this objection should not be disregarded entirely because it shows that voluntary euthanasia should be the last resort for patients and physicians.

Finally, many people object to euthanasia, because in their opinion, the decision regarding euthanasia may contradict the will of the patient. Such situations can occur when patients relatives can decide the life of this person should not be sustained. Certainly, such cases can be relevant to both patients and physicians.

Nevertheless, this objection is not quite applicable to the voluntary euthanasia. The thing is that this concept implies that an individual is willing to end his/her life. Moreover, he/she must explicitly state his request for assisted suicide; otherwise, euthanasia can hardly be morally permissible.

The idea of voluntary euthanasia may certainly seem unpleasant to many people; nevertheless, it is still worth discussion and attention. The main arguments in favor of this practice are based on the premise that a patient has a right to well-being and self-determination.

The duty of medical workers is to assist this person, especially if there are no ways easing the pain or treating the disease. Nevertheless, medical workers and legislators should identify specific cases when assisted suicide is legitimate and ethical in order to avoid possible malpractices.

Works Cited

Brock, Dan. Voluntary Active Euthanasia. Hastings Center Report 22 (1992): 74-77. Print.

Rachels, James. Active and Passive Euthanasia. The New England Journal of Medicine 292.2(1975): 66-70. Print.

The moral questions, ethics and meaning of life are all concepts that are closely connected and deal with how people view the value of life, what it means to the whole of human society and individuals. Many ethical and difficult decisions are always questioned, especially ones in relation to euthanasia and if it should be permitted, regulated or forbidden altogether. The argument centers on the positive sides of euthanasia and what makes such actions acceptable, in relation to personal wishes of the individual and lack of suffering.

The meaning of life is the most general aspect of judging about the requirements that must be set out by laws and peoples morals in regarding to the voluntary or involuntary taking of that life.

In Moral Dilemmas&Can Ethics Help? it is talked about letting infants die, if they have problems when being born, to prevent further suffering or giving every effort to make sure they survive but have a limited existence. The discussion focuses on Kant and what would be the morally correct thing to do, in the interests of an infant and the future quality of life they will have.

From one perspective, an infant should be treated as an adult and their wishes should be respected, in the want for a happy life. From another, it is possible to see the most good or bad that will come out for the greater society, parents and individuals themselves (Moral Dilemmas&Can Ethics Help, 2). The meaning of life is centered on the pleasures that people will get from being in the world, as all would agree that the negatives and stress is always unwanted, no matter who a person is, from what social class or country.

In his essay on Death, Thomas Nagel analyzes the issue of death and how people think of it. He says that If death is a disadvantage, it is not easy to say when a man suffers it (Nagel, 3). This leads to believe that it would be much better to let things take their natural turn of events and let the infant die, as they will be unable to suffer, in comparison to a life full of pain and limitations.

Considering euthanasia, the case of Dr. Freud comes to mind. He was having cancer and was in a lot of pain, thus, he requested his dear friend Max Schur, to inject him with a drug and end his suffering. In his writings, doctor accepted the possibility of euthanasia but only if it is requested by the patient themselves and the person administering the drug has no personal interest, want or need to do so (Freud 98).

It is clear that Dr. Freud did not want to suffer any more and made a conscious decision that it would be better to feel nothing, than pain and agony. This sort of thinking is attributed to the infant and it is said that if they could reason as well as an adult can, they would choose death, instead of life in pain. For example, utilitarianism states that people must focus on the greater good for all people and maximize happiness in the process.

The most basic aspect is the utilization of the situation in such a way that everyone does not suffer and get the most out of actions of actors. The end results or consequences of actions is what matters, so people should make their selections very carefully. One of the most important criteria of life is the balance between happiness and unhappiness. If a certain action will bring less happiness, especially to the greater amount of people, then such action should be avoided at all costs.

The decision bases itself on ethics and moral principles of highest order and even takes into consideration the happiness principle and the way people act towards the concept. There are many individuals who support utilitarian division of philosophy because it does not base itself on religion or any other power except a person, humanity and the greater good for people.

The highest ethical criteria define peoples actions and even though the situation matters and different conditions can be present, the end result stays the same and bases itself on most happiness. There is no denying that the individual will not suffer, parents will not constantly worry about their child and the society will not have to contribute to support social programs and health system. In a discussion titled What Is the Meaning of Life? a question of whether there are universal laws for it or people make it themselves are asked.

It is discussed that peoples meaning in life has become very confusing and there are two sides, one has a point, the other one does not. It is said that awareness creates meaning, which leads to believe that simply because people understand and interpret the information received, there is a point and they must continue living to gain more knowledge and understating (What is the Meaning of Life 4).

An opposing view looks at euthanasia from a point of a person being given the right to life; no matter by what circumstances it is defined. Comparing necessity to morality, it is that a rational and universal law makes it a must for one person to help another or commit an act that will be moral by the highest standards.

Thus, people must do all in their power to save a persons life and no matter how bad it might be, it is still morally right because it is better to live and feel, than not. The ethical and moral codes set out by the government in a form of laws reflect the general concepts of goodness and ethical attitude and behavior. This makes euthanasia illegal and it is because people in the strain of agony and pain cannot think clearly and would not be able to imagine future instances of life without pain.

Their thinking is limited by the moment, whereas in the future, it is quite possible that they will get well and can continue living a full and happy life. The duties and responsibilities are based on the moral codes which require respectful and equal treatment to all. These ethics reflect the qualities that every person possesses. This is why it is important to create a system that bases its laws and regulations on highest moral standards of ethics and equality.

As an opposing view to euthanasia, this could be said to be the fact that the highest moral ethic is to let a person live their life because they have already received it and they exist in the world. Some might argue that people do not have a moral right to decide whether they want or must live, as their life is not theirs directly, they were not the ones who have given it to themselves and so, their decision is unimportant.

But from the other side, people are given a conscious thought to be able to make such decisions. Reason and logic are part of humanity and is specifically the separation people have from other animal species. It is true that some animals do have the ability to reason but the moral and ethical considerations are in the hands of humans. In the end, it is argued that as intellectual creatures, people should have the right to choose but there should be strict circumstances that regulate such behavior (Cavan 39).

The modern society has many ethical and moral issues that are constantly debated and there are both positive and negative sides. Because morality is one of the major qualities of humanity, it can be seen why euthanasia is argued to be allowed and people should be able to choose themselves. The collective of all the moments of suffering that individuals will experience, together with the pain of their relatives, friends and society, create a lot of negativity and the purpose of life is to avoid any unwanted situations and sensations.

But it is also argued that the highest and most ethical morality is to endure, suffer and learn from the process, no matter how painful and disturbing it is. There is much more arguments that must be discussed but future research should focus on the individual and their wants and needs because life belongs to a person and not society.

Works Cited

Cavan, Seamus. Euthanasia: The Debate Over the Right to Die. New York, United States: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. Print.

Freud, Sigmund. The Letters of Sigmund Freud and Otto Rank. Maryland, United States: JHU Press, 2012. Print.

Moral Dilemmas&Can Ethics Help. Intelecom., Teleac, Pasadena, n.d. Television.

Nagel, Thomas. Mortal Questions. New York, United States: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.

What is the Meaning of Life. Intelecom., Teleac, Pasadena, n.d. Television.

Introduction

Euthanasia is a subject that continues to elicit mixed reactions from all quarters in the public domain. Most prominent among these reactions are heated debates between the proponents and opponents of the subject as to whether it should be embraced as an acceptable option under some circumstances.

A few nations across the globe have legalized euthanasia but even so, the debate over its ethical and moral acceptability has not subsided within such countries. Any time attention is drawn to this subject, it evokes deep emotions, which can be attributed to the fact that it involves matters of life and death. However, this aspect cannot stop discussions over the issue especially when more of the worlds nations seem to be contemplating legalizing euthanasia.

An Overview of Euthanasia

The meaning of euthanasia has changed over the years from how it was originally construed to what it means to the contemporary world. This element is partly attributable to the advancements in medical technology and the sophistication of peoples concept of life. Today, euthanasia is defined as the killing of a patient with the doctors full knowledge of doing so under instruction by the patient (Pereira 38-45). The definition extends to include the act of a physician knowingly prescribing lethal drugs to a patient at the patients request.

However, this definition still fails to capture a situation where life sustaining medication or machine is withdrawn to allow a patient to die with the patients consent or not, yet this practice too has become part of the term euthanasia (Stevens 187-200). The two different approaches to euthanasia both fall under active versus inactive and voluntary versus involuntary. However, the motive and the outcome remain the same because the result is a premature death for the patient as intended when the exercise is undertaken.

Prelude to the Argument

The proponents of euthanasia have advanced several reasons, which make them vouch for its legalization or rather its moral acceptance. Some of these reasons seem reasonable enough, but they are completely discredited by the fact that conscious termination of life is involved.

For as long as euthanasia is generally unaccepted worldwide, debates will continue to rage on with proponents of euthanasia trying to persuade their opponents to a golden mean over the issue. However, there is no way of coating the issue to make it attractive due to the ills it promises to deliver to a populace that embraces it. The focus of this research paper is to illuminate the ills of euthanasia with an aim of portraying it as a horrendous undertaking that should not even be contemplated by man.

The ills of euthanasia

Euthanasia is an undesirable undertaking and even though some advocate it, they seem to be doing so from an amoral perspective as this aspect underscores the only reason that it could appeal to them as rational human beings. Perhaps examining the ills of euthanasia carefully may give an insight into the reasons for the proponents position. The following are thus some of the ills of euthanasia.

Detrimental to Effect the Medical Profession

The medical profession finds the essence of its existence in the preservation of life. The oath taken by medical practitioners at the end of training or right before practice serves to add to the fact that medical practitioners have a duty of preserving and propagating life to humanity. It is worrying when for example a doctor, who is a proponent of euthanasia, is quoted to say that conducting euthanasia gives him a feeling of the executioner (Goel 224-231).

In addition, some doctors who illegally engaged in the activity did not show any remorse over the issue and they instead add that they would do the same given the same circumstances. This same undertaking was reported to cause emotional burdens to the extent of altering the practice patterns of some doctors. If this kind of scenario is left unchecked, it can only be imagined what the state of the medical field would look like.

To society, doctors symbolize the preservation and continuity of life. If charged with the task of administering the lethal medication or prescribing it, how society perceives doctors will change. In addition, their training will have to include life termination aspects, which undermine the essence of the profession. These elements make euthanasia a dangerous undertaking for the medical field.

Premature Euthanasia

It is claimed within the pro-euthanasia circles that it is only an option of last resort pursued when all other avenues have been exhausted. This assertion may seem appealing in some circumstances, but it should not blindfold those who do not welcome the idea for it has been reported elsewhere that euthanasia, in some cases, is employed before all palliative care options are explored.

Studies indicate that in the Netherlands and the United States, many patients who received euthanasia did so before all the palliative care options were utilized (Pereira 38-45). In the Netherlands, up to 9% nursing home patients suffered this fate while in the United States up to 39% of patients with psychological disorder suffered the same fate (Rietjens et al. 271-283). Chances are high that these patients never gave their consents before the exercise.

What makes the matter worse is that research indicates that 65-75% of physicians falsify the cause of death as being natural after performing euthanasia in the Netherlands (Rietjens et al. 271-283). Under such circumstances, one wonders how many people really die naturally because if the people entrusted with the preservation of life terminate it and falsify the outcome of the autopsy, then it becomes difficult to trust them anymore. These examples again point to the fact that euthanasia is not good for humankind.

Undermining the Sanctity of Life

The sanctity of life has always elicited emotional arguments whenever an issue is raised over it fro many people approach such arguments from a religious perspective. This perspective, though refuted by atheists and pagans mostly, seems to be the only perspective from which one can make sense of life.

The sad thing is that when an innocent life is taken, whether with or without the patients consent, proponents claim that the patient has exercised autonomy on the choice of whether to live or die. This assertion greatly undermines the value that is attached to life and by so doing; it refutes the teachings of Judeo-Christian traditions.

Refuting such teachings is tantamount to refuting the existence of God who is the author of life and the only one who has authority over it. No individual has authority over his or her own live let alone that of another and any idea that seeks to change this position is misguided. Accepting such a position would lead to all sorts of life ending activities in the name of acting in the best interest of a patient, which is not acceptable especially when the topic of discussion is life.

Critique of Purported Benefits of Euthanasia

Proponents of euthanasia have attempted to pitch the practice as an idea that is worth considering as society increasingly becomes liberal through the advancement of arguments, which are presented using appealing language to make them palatable to society. One of such argument is claims of people having autonomy over their own lives and the decision to terminate it. It is irrational to claim to have authority over something whose existence is mystery and as such, man can never have authority over life.

The consequence of allowing euthanasia could be similar to what is experienced in the Netherlands where about 1000 people are euthanized without their express consent (Rietjens et al. 271-283). Another example of purported benefits of euthanasia is the idea of relieving pain and suffering, which seems to be the main argument by the proponents of euthanasia. Pain and suffering are not desirable elements by any means, but should not give room for the termination of life.

What would be the implications for medical research and development if this practice were permitted? This undertaking has the ability to stagnate research for palliative care drugs and drugs for illnesses that are considered terminal today yet that should not be the case. There are many other arguments for euthanasia, but they cannot stand critical evaluation, which only serves to add to the fact that it is not good for the well-being of humankind.

Conclusion

It has emerged vividly that the concept of euthanasia does not do any good to humanity, but rather serves to derail the advancements in the medical field. Therefore, it should be inhibited by every available resource because in addition to adversely affecting the medical profession, it has the potential of leading to numerous unnecessary deaths and worst still, undermine the sanctity of life. Those who vouch for euthanasia seem not to appreciate the consequences it could bring; hence, it should be discouraged completely.

Works Cited

Goel, Vaibhav. Euthanasia  A dignified end of life! International NGO Journal 3.12 (2008): 224-231. Print.

Pereira, Jose. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): 38-45. Print.

Rietjens, Judith, Paul van der Mass, Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Johannes van

Delden, and Agnes van der Heide. Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6.3 (2009): 271-283. Print.

Stevens, Kenneth. Emotional and psychological effects of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia on participating physicians. Issues in Law and Medicine 21.3 (2006): 187-200. Print.

Euthanasia is the process by which medical practitioners assist patients to die based on their preference for the same. Sometimes, the patient makes explicit requests for assistance. However, in other situations, the patient may not be in a position to make those demands. Therefore, someone else will make the decision for them. The practice has become a central ethical concern for medical practitioners because technology allows individuals to prolong their lives irrespective of the quality or degree of suffering of the patient.

This matter is a moral question owing to three key questions. A health professional must put into consideration three traits before making the ultimate decisions. First, one must ask whether termination of a patients life is ever right even in severe and unceasing pain or terminal illness. If one responds in the affirmative, then one must outline the circumstances under which euthanasia would be ethical. Finally, one must distinguish between letting one die and actively killing them.

Health professionals have the option of injecting a lethal drug or provide an overdose as a way of assisting someone to die. This form of euthanasia is active euthanasia, and is illegal in all states in the US. Currently, three states  Washington, Oregon and Montana  allow assisted suicide or withdrawal of treatment. Therefore, even if a health professional believes that it is a patients right to choose when and how to die, he must consider the legal implications of the same (Fieser 15).

A series of values contradict each other or may be used as ethical prerogatives in euthanasia cases. A health practitioner must tackle the conflicting interests of paternalism versus autonomy. Many supporters of euthanasia claim that patients have the autonomy to decide when and how they will die. In this case, practitioners must decide whether they respect their patients right to self determination more than their right to life.

In states where assisted suicide is permissible, practitioners need to know which values are more important. Medial paternalism occurs when health professionals feel that they have the obligation to control patients rights irrespective of their wishes. Careful consideration of the patients wishes must go hand in hand with the notion that sometimes healthcare professionals know best. Therefore, issues of paternalism must be counterbalance with those of self determination.

Concerns about beneficence must also be balanced with maleficence. All medical professionals are under the obligation of doing good (beneficence) and causing no harm (maleficence). In the matter of euthanasia, professionals ought to decide between the overall good of the dying patient and that of other stakeholders. Opponents of euthanasia affirm that the practice would place a lot of pressure on elderly patients to seek assisted death.

In a health system where costs are constantly escalating, some family members would eagerly embrace an alternative to costly treatments. This behavior would lead to maleficence. Conversely, other advocates believe that alternatives to euthanasia exist. They affirm that depression and pain management are the key propellants of suicide, and terminating such patients lives would be a short cut. Therefore, practitioners who choose these alternatives lead to beneficence in the field of medicine (Keown 33).

The ethical decision maker must consider tensions between the quality of life versus its sanctity. Some individuals assert that performing euthanasia implies that some lives are more valuable than others. Many beliefs teach that human lives are worth living and that no life is worth destroying.

A medical practitioner who holds such beliefs would find it immoral to assist patients in committing suicide as it would be tantamount to playing God. On the flipside, a person may claim not all lives are equal especially during terminal illness. If a persons body has undergone severe physical deterioration that they have to depend on others for even the most basic functions, then the quality of their life is low.

Additionally, the person may lose his or her identity due to mental challenges and unresponsive pain. Adherents of the latter school may accuse the state of violating the sanctity of life by contravening a patients right to die. In essence, one persons theology is anothers transgression. Members of the health profession must weigh overall sentiments on these values and the legal implications of both before they pick a side.

Issues of treatment futility (extraordinary treatment) versus ordinary care must also be taken into consideration. Some religious communities advocate for the provision of ordinary care.

In essence, the believe that patients have a right to access medical treatment so long as it is not extremely expensive, inconvenient or even painful to the dying patient. In such cases, treatment is futile and could even cause problems to other patients. However such groups call for provision of ordinary care in the form of food and water even in non-responsive patients.

The problem with this school of thought is that it is extremely difficult to decide which medical procedures are extraordinary and futile. Dialysis machines may be useful to some dying patients but the same is not true for others. Experimental drugs may be ineffectual to some and useful to others. Therefore, medical practitioners who do not belong to those schools of thought may follow their own path. However, those that do may need to consider continual provision of feeding tubes and other life-support devices.

Overly, professionals should give primacy to legal codes which forbid physician-initiated euthanasia. In states that allow withdrawal or passive euthanasia, a range of ethical values must be balanced depending on the professionals beliefs. This relate to autonomy, paternalism, maleficence, beneficence, treatment futility, ordinary care, sanctity of life and the quality of life.

Works Cited

Fieser, James. Euthanasia: the practice of morality. 2008. Web.

Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legislation. Cambridge: CUP, 202. Print.

Statement of Issue

Euthanasia should be viewed as not simply a medical procedure carried out based on the principles of healthcare ethics (i.e., terminating the suffering of the patient), but also as an irrefutable right of a person to die.

Research Plan

It is required to identify the key arguments against and in favor of euthanasia. Moreover, it is necessary to nail down the reasons for people to approve of euthanasia or to dismiss it. In order to carry out the analysis of the existing opinions, several ways of viewing the issue must be provided, including ethical, medical and legal ones. It will also be required to consider the recent researches on euthanasia, as well as case studies and court cases. After a thorough literature review is carried out, the discussion of the existing arguments will commence. In the analysis of the claims in favor and against euthanasia, the cause and effect relationships between the factors affecting the choice of euthanasia should be established.

Overview of Claims

Main topic: Euthanasia must be accepted as the procedure that allows for the compliance with one of the basic human rights, i.e., the right to die. Despite the fact that euthanasia is currently prohibited in all states of the USA, it should be noted that self-assisted dying is legal in Washington and several other states (Montana, Oregon, New Mexico and Vermont). While involuntary euthanasia is not to be allowed, euthanasia as the method of terminating the suffering of a patient must be practiced in the U.S. healthcare institutions.

Claim 1:.The right to die is one of the basic human rights that must be appreciated and complied with by the state governmental bodies. Therefore, people should be provided with an opportunity to terminate their suffering in case when medical assistance is impossible.

Type of argument: inductive (Wood, 2015)

Support (use at least one outside source): Lachman, V. (2010). Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate liberatio or murder? MEDSURG Nursing, 19(2), 121125.

Claim 2: Though healthcare ethics presupposes that the healthcare specialist must not carry out any actions that will do the patient any harm, it could be argued that in case of a terminal and painful disease the inaction is even more harmful than action; therefore, euthanasia as the action aimed at relieving the patient of their pain can be considered the only ethical step possible.

Type of argument: deductive

Support (use at least one outside source): ANA Center for Ethics and Human Rights. (2013). Position statements: Euthanasia, Assisted suicide and aid in dying. Washington, DC: American Nurses Association.

Claim 3: By claiming that euthanasia should be banned, people care not about the person, who may be suffering more than (s)he can handle, but themselves, i.e., their concept of ethics and the compliance with the existing moral code, not to mention the threats of legal issues that the introduction of the law may entail. Therefore, when considering the argument, one may dismiss the ethical concerns of the opponents as invalid.

Type of argument:deductive

Support (use at least one outside source): Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The ethics of euthanasia. Australia Medical Student Kournal, 3(1), 7375.

Conclusion

With the integration of personal and professional responsibility into the U.S. healthcare, as well as the reconsideration of some of the current legislation principles from the perspective of basic human rights (the right to die in particular), one must admit the necessity to consider euthanasia a legal procedure.

References

ANA Center for Ethics and Human Rights. (2013). Position statements: Euthanasia, assisted suicide and aid in dying. Washington, DC: American Nurses Association.

Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The ethics of euthanasia. Australia Medical Student Kournal, 3(1), 7375.

Lachman, V. (2010). Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate liberation or murder? MEDSURG Nursing, 19(2), 121125.

Wood, N. (2015). Perspectives on argument (8th ed.). London, UK: Longman.

Content Description

Even nowadays, the issue of euthanasia is, understandably enough, viewed as controversial and is considered unacceptable. Thus, it is currently barely possible to carry out the process in a way that could satisfy the existing legal and ethical standards. In her essay, Margaret Sommerville addresses the problem to explain why euthanasia cannot be viewed as a legitimate tool for meeting patients needs.

Introduction to the Author and the Thesis

Sommerville is a renowned Samuel Gale Professor of Law at the McGill University in Montreal, the Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and the Founding Director of the Center for Medicine, Ethics, and Law. She has been awarded the Order of Australia and the UNESCO Avicenna Prize for Ethics in Science and, therefore, has a very rigid stance on the problem of euthanasia. In her essay, Sommerville states that the subject matter implies a plethora of ethical dilemmas once it is implemented.

The ethical concerns range from defining the eligibility of the people requesting it to the lack of clarity in determining the patients intentions after the procedure has been carried out. Therefore, Sommervilles thesis statement is that the rejection of euthanasia must be viewed as the refusal from committing an intentional murder. This essay, however, states that, although Sommerville raises some legitimate points, the lack of substantial evidence that could prove her statement and the attempt to appeal to the readers emotionally, of which she accuses her opponents, invalidate a range of her arguments.

Essay: Key Points Summary

The author mentions that the concept of euthanasia may portray people with disabilities in the light that they might find unfavorable. Furthermore, the lack of clarity in the notion of a sensible regulation of euthanasia may be viewed as a reason for concern. Finally, Sommerville emphasizes that the legal cases related to euthanasia in the Netherlands are not scrutinized in the media sufficiently enough. The fact that the media refuses to cover some of the issues related to euthanasia is a reason for concern.

Agreement and Disagreement Points: Reasons and Evidence

Sommerville makes very legitimate points when discussing the issue of euthanasia. For instance, the fact that the line between euthanasia and murder is barely noticeable needs to be mentioned. Indeed, Sommerville argues that allowing euthanasia will make it very complicated to retain the values that keep society together. Particularly, she states that the regulation in favor of euthanasia may pose a threat to the vulnerable members of the population: Once we cross the clear line that we must not intentionally kill another person, theres no logical stopping point (Sommerville par. 6).

The concerns voiced by the author are quite understandable. Indeed, the argument about euthanasia can be viewed as a tool for manipulation. Furthermore, with the introduction of euthanasia, the line between what is ethical and what is not may be blurred since assisted suicide will be viewed as a legitimate procedure and even a part of addressing the needs of people with terminal illnesses.

On the other hand, it can be argued that Sommervilles assumptions are somewhat farfetched. For example, the author mentions that the reasons for euthanasia to be allowed are bound to grow. Sommerville voices the concern that along with terminal illness and suffering as the reasons to justify euthanasia, less legitimate ones will be added as well: But as people and physicians become accustomed to euthanasia they ask, Why not just one reason? (Sommerville par. 8). However, if established as regulation and supported by the current legal principles, the standards for euthanasia will remain untouched. Therefore, there are no reasons to fear that introducing euthanasia as a concept to the modern healthcare environment will tear the very fabric of morality apart.

Conclusion

Although Sommervilles argument is rather sensible, the fact that she succumbs to the same strategies that she criticizes in her opponents invalidates her statement. Furthermore, the author simplifies the concept of euthanasia. To make the right choice, one must consider both the advantages and disadvantages of a regulation supporting euthanasia. More importantly, the evaluation must be carried out in an unbiased manner. Thus, a sensible solution can be found.

Works Cited

Sommerville, Margaret. Why Slippery Slopes Cant Be Prevented. Mercator.Net. 2014. Web.

With the advancement in medical care over late many years and a developing future, conversations and choices in regard to end-of-life issues have gotten progressively significant. In most nations, dynamic direct willful extermination is a taboo method of the hardship of the patients life, while its detached structure is regularly acknowledged. The immediate dynamic killing is a clinical demonstration coordinated to the hardship of life, while a doctor helped self-destruction is a demonstration of the doctor where he gives the patient a medicament for taking life (Santoro & Bennett, 2018). There have been numerous conversations in the United States and the United Kingdom, finished in 1906, when Ohio endeavored to pass a law to authorize euthanasia (Keown, 2018). Developments to the authorization of the Active Direct Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) have denoted the most recent couple of many years, lawmakers across the world effectively decriminalize PAS as a milder type of the hardship of life.

Willful termination is lawful in some European nations. In a large portion of the world, assisted suicide is viewed as a criminal act (Keown, 2018). In the USA, a couple of states have perceived dynamic killing as legitimate (Keown, 2018). Be that as it may, inactive willful extermination is viewed as lawful in all USA purviews as it does not include a demonstration of slaughtering somebody. Rather one is allowing somebody to bite the dust all alone normally. In the best situation, 97% of everything agony can be managed, yet 3% of agonies remain, and that can be deplorable and cannot be controlled (Santoro & Bennett, 2018). Only one of the numerous instances of nonsensicalness of the perception of killing as a corrupt strategy. Basically, the interests and the desire of the patient ought to be over the desires of specialists and even officials. Self-rule of the will is the premise of respect for human instinct.

References

Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legalisation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Santoro, J., & Bennett, M. (2018). Ethics of end-of-life decisions in pediatrics: A narrative review of the roles of caregivers, shared decision-making, and patient centered values.Behavioral Sciences, 8(5), 42. Web.

Those who do not advocate for euthanasia frequently pose the debate that it would be recommended to allow a patient in a vegetative state to die rather than to actively take them out of life.

Morally, physicians are allowed to voluntarily cut off patients drinking, eating and drugs taking or sedating the patient and leaving the rest to nature, but it is not permissible in morality terms to facilitate a patients means of committing suicide or administer hastening measures for death.

This is a complicated and very demanding issue to get a definite stand. The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of whether from this point of view Euthanasia is morally acceptable (Daniel, 1999).

For this discussion to be feasible there is need to know how to determine morally permissible actions. That is, some of the factors which make such actions different in moral grounds.

All actions according to general knowledge are composed of intent and aftermaths, and it is this part that goes further to determine whether an action is moral or not. There are varied philosophical conventions which prefer either intent or consequences, while others are proponents of totally separate factors.

Conversely, there is no intention of moving further to through the demanding role of assessing this issue from all philosophical perspectives, which would rather be not feasible (Ashley & ORourke, 2001).

Most probably majority of individuals have went through experiences with relatives and friends who physically and psychologically suffered before death occurred. In other instances, some people are at the moment undergoing the grievous moment with may be a friend or a relative suffering terminal disease.

This is mostly in the last stages of such diseases as Cancer, AIDS and Diabetes where the victim is normally in a vegetative state with chances of recovering scaling at zero. These terminally ill individual are often forced to endure vital and inexorable pain and suffering. Modern medicine can only reach a certain limit in the attempt to alleviate the pain (Moreland, 2009).

Any individual who may come across and hear or see such an anguish in reality with someone dear to him or her to some extent shares the pain and suffering both emotionally and psychologically which makes one even desperately wishes it to stop.

In the meantime the medication and the doctors are not trivial anymore in stopping the pain and the victim despite all the sufferings, he or she is in a vegetative state and there is nothing she or he can contribute even to the society (Rachels, 2009).

In respect to this, some terminally ill patients may willingly wish to terminate their lives, but since they are in critical stages when even speaking is an issue it becomes very hard or rather impossible to it by themselves.

In this kind of a situation, some close people may be willing to assist the terminally ill patient commit suicide, because by doing so they feel that suffering will finally come to an end. The problem comes when the moral concern of whether doing so would be acceptable in moral terms (Sullivan, 1999).

Irrefutably it is very natural for an individual to wish well for another one and this would drive to assisting one dear to from such unnecessary suffering and pain and anguish. To force a terminally ill patient to go on living until nature takes its course would contradict human dignity since at the same time the patient is being forced to endure constant pain and suffering from the disease and other medical procedures.

The term euthanasia implies good death as it is supposed to act as a means through which a terminally ill person whose recovery chances are nonexistent dies with dignity.

All the same, to some peoples view it will be morally wrong to use euthanasia to terminate somebodys life even in whichever condition (Moreland, 2000).

To these opponents of mercy killing, the problem arises because the approach focuses on happiness versus suffering and puts them at the forefront of life itself. Claims favoring mercy killing seems to mean that unhappy life is not worthy living.

This is a hedonistic point of view to life where it is believed that in the analysis, if the situation produces more of pain, suffering and anguish than it produces joy, serenity and happiness, then it is not good. This is because in such a situation there will be of evil than good being produced as a result (Moreland, 2009).

The truth is that in life everyone suffers and the ability to endure such sufferings is present through focus and thinking positive. It thus follows that, those who come out to assist others or to commit suicide probably do focus much on the suffering side and ignores the inherent capability of the mind to tolerate suffering and come up with implication that goes beyond any feeling that is intrinsically negative (Sidney, 2001).

To die is a reality that every one will eventually experience, and this unfortunately comes sooner for those individuals who contracts terminal diseases.

Even if one in such a condition endures the pain and suffering with an implication that it will be feasible if remains focused and with the meaning of life at the forefront, the bottom line remains that such an individual still remembers that soon he or she will meet death and thus little can he or she decide of the future (Sidney, 2001).

The future becomes determined by the disease. However those who are forced to tolerate suffering and pain should be able to seek their own self-respect without recourse to circumstances with any one claiming to be a beloved one being willing and able to do so too.

No one in the family members or those dear to the victim wishes death to come soon, actually they never wish them to die so as to terminate the suffering claimed but instead they celebrate their lives and always be thoughtful that inherent treasure of life that is incomparably more non trivial than suffering and happiness. This means that life has immeasurable treasure or value which also means that life is sacred (Plato, 2000).

If individuals in the society decide stupidly that the life value should be fully considered with reference to the level of suffering and happiness that people go through, then it as well can be taken to mean that those languishing in absolute poverty should be permitted to die since they endure constant suffering and pain.

As a matter of fact, very few individuals will seem to entertain such a nonsensical claim or notion which will sounds abhorrent to many people.

Conversely, the truth then follows from the fact that, we should ground our society morals on strong and sensible ground, otherwise there will be much immorality creeping in the society deceiving our worldviews (Joanne, 2006).

Societies should be of the claim that life is inherently valuable no matter what extent of pain and suffering one might go through. By this, humanity will possibly be opening up to deeds that recently sound inhumane but might sound usual to pleasant to more than expected individuals in the near future (Joanne, 2006).

The intent for patients being helped to commit suicide and those willingly and actively volunteer to use euthanasia to shorten their suffering and painful and useless life is similar to the aforementioned alternatives; it call for intentional life taking of the ill patient.

By its very definition, PAS permits the physician to terminate lives of terminally ill patients using the death booster for those patients willing to die.

The physician is said to be conveyed in intentional killing by embracing this approach to hasten death of a terminally ill person who wills to die (Bowie, Michaels and Solomon, 2006).

To recapitulate, it is noteworthy to say that life is sacred and human beings should always seek to protect ad preserve it which then leads us to the notion that people should be allowed to live until nature does it role.

If human beings become thoughtful of the sanctity of life, then there should always be personal dignity n life regardless of tough circumstances people face.

Therefore, since both seem to mean the same thing, there is no significant difference between killing a patient in reality and using euthanasia or allowing him or her to die because they are both intentional in essence.

Reference List

Ashley, B. and ORourke, K. 2001. Health Care Ethics. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.

Bowie, L., Michaels, M, & Solomon, C.2006. Twenty questions: an Introduction to philosophy. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Daniel, C. 1999. Minimalistic Ethics. Hastings Center Report 1 (11), Pp.19-25.

Joanne, L. 2006. By No Extraordinary Means. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Moreland, J. 2009. Review of The End of Life. The Thomist. 53(1), Pp.714-22.

Moreland, J. 2000. The Life and Death Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger Books. 4(2), Pp. 12.

Plato. 2000. The death of Socrates in Bowie, GL, Michaels, MW & Solomon, RC, Twenty questions: an introduction to philosophy. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Rachels, J. 2009. The End of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sidney, H., W. 2001. The Physicians Responsibility toward Hopelessly Ill Patients: A Second Look. The New England Journal of Medicine. 3(2), Pp. 844-49.

Sullivan, D. 1999. Active and Passive Euthanasia: An Important Distinction. New York: McGraw- Hill Press.