Category: Euthanasia

Rhetorical analysis

All texts contain ideas that a writer wishes to convey. These are expressed in a unique way depending on the aim, purpose, and audience that a writer wishes to address. The expression of ideas takes various forms. While some can be easily comprehended, others may be complex owing to the content and the way in which an author wishes to convey some particular information. The content also is dependent upon the knowledge of the writer on the subject.

However, most writers seek the audience of the general population since the topics that they do handle touch on issues that affect human society. Among the things that shape what a person writes are his/her beliefs, values, interpretations, and assumptions. The goal of this rhetorical analysis is to identify the beliefs, values, and assumptions concerning euthanasia that are contained in the web blogs.

In medical terms, euthanasia is the act or practice of deliberately ending the life of an individual who could either be suffering from a terminal illness or be in an incurable condition. The ending of life could either be by the suspension of medical treatment or lethal injection. However, much controversy surrounds this act. Should a person be left to die naturally regardless of how much pain he/she feels, or should someone else intervene and make his/her suffering short by killing him/her prematurely?

Crooked Timber, which is a web blog, features a unique voice where users post criticisms of perceived arbitrary and prejudiced editorial choices. Even though there is no clear position among the users concerning the issue of euthanasia, general ethical issues are however dominant.

The web blog provides background information into the entire issue of morality. One of the postings indicates that morality is based on such inherent human traits like instincts or ideology rather than on widely shared social goals. This could as well be a condemnation of the moral code that does not take into consideration the fact that in the shared goals emanates morality. Holding that argument of moral discourses are just, but rationalizations evade the fact that such issues like abortion and euthanasia have dogged the human society for many centuries owing to the inability to structure absolute or ideal analysis of human life.

The question that is the basis of all moral analysis centers on the authority which decides good and bad, life and death; in the quest to ponder this issue, the postings in the Crooked Timber resort to a dialectical method.

The blog provides a general intellectual analysis on various issues in the sense that quite a number of moral issues can be handled by going through a couple of related ethical postings. One of the bloggers approaches to ethical reflections is that an individual ought to ask himself/herself the principles that he/she should accept rather than try and convince another party to believe what he/she thinks that he/she knows.

With respect to euthanasia, it would be of no use for one to convince another of the evils of its practice with regard to taking away someones life. Supporting the act or not supporting it entirely depends on the ethical considerations of an individual; hence should not be imposed on another person. Ethical reflection and possible justifications on issues like euthanasia can only be constructively addressed to those people who share certain values or premises.

The blog provides a good lead for people who seek to gain a deeper insight into the moral issues that are central to any individual human life. For instance, if at all it is ethical to pull out a life-supporting machine from an individual who is highly dependent upon it. These are some of the questions that we cannot attach an absolute explanation to, even though they are moral issues that require in-depth analysis. A doctor may deliberately pull out a life-supporting machine from a patient, so he may be relieved of the task of having to attend to him/her knowing that sooner or later he/she will die.

Slashdot, which is also a web blog, provides interesting insights into the issue of euthanasia. According to a blog user, there may be no good reasons to oppose euthanasia as there may be no good reasons to support it, but still, it will always remain an issue of debate. We can as well say that the element of relativity seems to be at the forefront of much of the debate on moral issues since not all human societies are governed by the same ethical rules.

However, informal acceptance of euthanasia has proved problematic in the past. In Germany, the Nazis legalized euthanasia which was approved by doctors for selected people like the severely mentally retarded on the grounds that their lives were not worth living. However, lifes worth is not to be determined by other human subjects, for this compromises its essence.

The moral issue cannot be ignored as much as they do not provide clear concepts. Even though the legalization of euthanasia could be driven by genuine concerns, the definition of its scope is never clear. The Nazis broadened the category of the undesirables to include some ethnic communities, which perverted euthanasia to extremely evil purposes. This creates suspicion that its acceptance, legalization, and practice would lead to public programs for problematic people in society, especially the very old and the poor. Such issues like racism could be propelled to another angle since some people may use euthanasia as a basis for wiping some ethnic communities.

However, there are situations that may call for euthanasia. While it is the duty of doctors to save an individuals life, that responsibility does not transcend the prolonging of life through artificial means in every circumstance.

Work Cited

Mandle John, (2004) Posner, Rawls and Reflective Equilibrium. Web.

Euthanasia can be defined as the intentional or deliberate intervention of killing a person to relieve pain or agony or in case of a terminal illness. This is particularly done by physicians under the patients approval or consent and is considered humane euthanasia. Euthanasia could either be non-voluntary, which is illegal in every nation since it is conducted by physicians without the consent of the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is where an individual makes a request to be killed for his or her alleged benefits and is legal in some nations. Involuntary euthanasia is regarded as murder since the individual who is killed did not wish for it (Erdemir & Omur Pr. 16).

Euthanasia is a common topic of discussion in bioethics and revolves around other issues such as assisted suicide and euthanasia by action or omission. Assisted suicide results when a person gives the individual some tactics and procedures to take away his or her own life. Euthanasia by action, on the other hand, is intentional taking away of life through undertaking a particular action that could include administering a lethal injection. Moreover, euthanasia by omission is intentional taking away of life by evading provision of basic care that may include food. Therefore, debate on euthanasia triggers various ethical, legal as well as moral issues that need to be addressed critically. In the U.S, for instance, euthanasia is illegal irrespective of the patients state. However, the practice could be legal or not with respect to a nations jurisdiction. In Belgium, Sweden, and Norway, euthanasia is legalized when the patient is under chronic pain in addition to terminal illnesses.

Historically, euthanasia was a common practice in ancient Greece as well as Rome. These civilizations decided that it was not necessary to safeguard the life of someone who had already lost the significance of it or took it to be burdensome. The Hippocrates once opposed the practice according to the Hippocratic Oath dating approximately 400 BC that states I will not administer poison to anyone when asked to do so, nor suggest such a course (Erdemir & Omur Pr. 4). On the same note, the practice was a common practice legalized in ancient Greek and Rome. With reference to the 1300s, the English jurisdiction deemed assisted suicide as a crime. Mercy killing was also opposed by the twelfth and fifth century Christians (Erdemir & Omur Pr. 5).

In 1828, the initial anti-euthanasia law was approved in New York where a heated debate regarding euthanasia and related abortions was apparent. By this time, euthanasia was either voluntary or involuntary and was being criticized by several medics and religious leaders. In 1870, the American Medical Association prohibited the administration of analgesics in euthanasia, and by the beginning of the twentieth century, mercy and assisted suicide had raised the publics eyebrows. Therefore, by 1905, a bill that aimed to legalize euthanasia was opposed in Ohio (Emanuel pr. 1).

During the 1940s, the German physicians applied non-voluntary euthanasia to get rid of the ill and handicapped Germans in bunged gas chambers with the aim of minimizing the psychiatrically ill and handicapped individuals. This was prohibited in 1945 following the killing of close to three hundred thousand Germans. The gas chambers were also utilized by the NAZIs to exterminate their enemies, which constituted a form of criminal euthanasia (Emanuel pr. 10).

During the twentieth century, various agencies erupted to address the practice of euthanasia as 1935, Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation Society (VELS), which was advocating for its legalization in London, and the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia (NSLE) in 1938. The1980 saw the establishment of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, to advocate for voluntary mercy killing together with the U.S, Hemlock Society. Currently, various court cases have erupted as a result of euthanasia particularly physician-assisted suicide but the debate still stands.

References

Emanuel, Ezekiel. History of Medicine: The History of Euthanasia Debates in the United States and Britain. American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2011. Web.

Erdemir, Aysegil and Omur Elcioglu. A short history of Euthanasia Laws, and their Place in Turkish Law. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 11 (2001): 47-49. Web. 2011.

The question of euthanasia creates numerous debates because of diverse views and opinions regarding the value and meaning of human life. Some critics admit that it is simply not true that human life is so absolutely sacred that people may never under any circumstances take a persons life or, to put it more neutrally, bring about a persons death. Christian moral theologians have always allowed that one may justifiably take another persons life in self-defense, or in a so-called just war, or as a punishment for certain crimes. Again, one may bring about anothers death quite deliberately when it is a secondary effect of some other act; for example, where saving the life of a mother in childbirth will inevitably involve the death of the child. Further, there may be circumstances where it is legitimate to bring about ones own death: indeed, those who lay down their lives for their friends, or for the truth, or for their religious faith or a noble cause, are often seen as moral heroes and heroines (Allen et al 5). In these cases some moralists argue that people are not really intending to kill other people or themselves; rather they are doing somethinghelping friends, standing up for a causethat indirectly involves another person in losing their life, or us in losing human lives. People can really make such a distinction, and this distinction will bear the weight some moralists want to put on it. Terminally ill patients should have a right to die in order to avoid sufferings and agony before death.

Euthanasia is permissible if it helps a patient to terminate terrible sugaring and painful death. In certain very special circumstances, bring about the death of a patient, at the free and informed request of the patient or the patients proxy, where it is clear the prolongation of the patients life would be of no real benefit to him or her. It is simply emotive scaremongering to suggest that both positions are based on the same logic. There is no slippery slope which begins with helping a patient at his or her request to die a properly human death and which ends in something like the Nazi euthanasia program. After all, some people think that there should be a death penalty for certain crimes (Keown 32). They believe that in certain cases the taking of the criminals life is justified. It does not follow from this that capital punishment is the first step on a slippery slope that will lead logically and inevitably to something like the Nazi extermination program. A distinction which has also played a major part in the discussion of when life sustaining medical treatment should be given or not given is that between killing a patient by, say, actively administering a lethal drug, or letting a patient die by removing medical treatment or drug therapy, or basic care such as providing food and liquid. This distinction is also sometimes described as active and passive euthanasia and it has commonly been held that while it is morally wrong actively to cause a terminal patients death, it can be morally permissible to refuse or withdraw treatment even though this brings about the patients death (Kaveny 2).

In contrast to this view, theologizes state that human life and sufferings are divine gifts so a person must endure them. Those who support this position usually talk a great deal about the sanctity of human life as though human life were absolutely sacred and they had a positive duty to sustain human life in all circumstances. Some have even cited the Hippocratic Oath of the medical profession which forbids physicians from deliberately taking the life of a patient. The argument that if you allow physicians to bring about the death of a patient, even for the most compassionate reasons, you will inevitably end up in something like the Nazi extermination programas though the same logic operated in both casesis constantly brought up in discussions about mercy killing. It is therefore worthwhile saying something about it (Somerville 33).

There are other cases where removing medical technology or other forms of life-sustaining treatment is tantamount to. active killing. If it is certain that you will die if switch off the respirator to which you are attached, and if then deliberately switch off the respirator, have killed you just as surely as if had given you a lethal injection. The distinction between killing and letting die therefore does not of itself help us very much since the same one act may in some circumstances be described as killing and in other circumstances as letting die. Put in another way, one may bring about the death of another person and be culpable for it either by active killing, for example by administering a lethal drug, or by the refusal or withdrawal of essential medical treatment (Mahjabeen b.d.). The crucial question is: when is the deliberate bringing about of another persons death, either by active means or by withdrawing treatment, justifiable. People cannot say that all cases where active means are used to bring about another persons death are immoral and that all cases where people bring about a persons death by letting that person die are morally acceptable. The Hippocratic Oath does not mean that a physician has a duty to preserve life at all costs. As an eminent British specialist in palliative care has put it: Since Hippocrates, doctors have undertaken never to destroy life deliberately. This implies that they will Endeavour to sustain life when, from a biological point of view, it is sustainable. On the other hand, a doctor has no legal, moral or ethical obligation to use drugs or apply treatments if their use can be described as prolonging the process of distress of dying. He does not have a duty to preserve life at all costs. The same physician goes on to say: Priorities change when a patient is expected to die within a few weeks or months; the primary aim is then not to preserve life but to make the life that remains as comfortable and as meaningful as possible. Thus, what may be appropriate treatment in an acutely ill patient may be inappropriate in the dying (Kaveny 5).

In contrast to this view, critics state that euthanasia can be used for immoral purposes and can lead to death of a healthy individual. In this case, critics have been considering the problems about the prolongation of life by medical technology from an external, objective, perspective, the point of view of the physician looking at the patients quality of life and trying to judge whether or not life-sustaining treatment should be offered or refused, continued or withdrawn. The physician can, of course, give the patient medical advice about his or her condition and provide estimates about the future course of an illness or disease (Garrett 87). In the last resort the question whether it is worthwhile for patients to have their lives prolonged is not a medical question; it is a moral question which requires a personal conscientious choice and decision about the most momentous matter anyone has to face. Of course medical advice will be relevant to the making of that decision, but the decision is whether it is for the patients real good or benefit as a human being to have his or her life prolonged, and that is a decision that only the patient can make. One patient might decide that prolonging her life will involve needless suffering, loss of personal dignity et cetera. Another patient may very well choose to live out her terminal illness for religious reasons. She may, for example, see her suffering as having a redemptive meaning. Many Christians will, no doubt, see suffering in this way; but if a person is not a Christian je may see certain kinds of suffering and pain as demeaning and pointless. For the physician or external observer the suffering involved may, in objective medical terms, be very much the same, but that suffering will be seen in very different ways by different kinds of patients. Dying is, or ought to be, a very personal business (Geisler and Moreland 87).

Human life if valued only if brings happiness and joy to a person, so the terminally ill patient should have a right to choose between life and death. They may, at the patients request, express or implied, withdraw life-sustaining treatment and let the patient die; they may refuse treatment which is medically extraordinary or pointless; they may alleviate the patients suffering by using means which they know will hasten the patients death; and finally they may, at the request of the patient, take direct action to end the patients life. At present there is a fair degree of consensus that the first three ways of bringing about the end of a persons life are ethically acceptable, but there is still widespread unease about any form of direct action to assist a patient to end his or her life (Geisler and Moreland 82). Very much the same point is made by no less an authority than Pope Paul VI: The duty of the physician consists more in striving to relieve pain than in prolonging as long as possible with every available means a life that is no longer fully human and that is naturally coming to its conclusion. Pope Paul VI speaks of a life that is no longer fully human, he is making the same distinction people made before between biological life and properly human, or biographical, life. Again, a French moral theologian has argued that we cannot purely and simply equate respect for life with the prolongation of life at any cost (Geisler and Moreland 43). Following Public opinion polls:

Americans have consistently favored the freedom to end ones life when the perceived quality of life has significantly diminished, either by ones own hand or with the assistance of a physician. Existing policy regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide conflicts with the American publics attitudes regarding the matter, as well as examines implications for social workers who serve clients facing end-of-life decisions (Allen et al 6).

This survey shows that euthanasia is a complex moral problem which is difficult to solve using ethical or moral reasoning only.

The argument against euthanasia can be explained in terms of legal precedent: if we permit euthanasia we will permit death of innocent people in many other cases. The Final Report of the Netherlands State Commission on Euthanasia, issued in 1985, recommended that a physician who intentionally ended the life of a patient at the request of the patient should be punishable at law. The report also recommended that an exception should be made for physicians who do this for a patient in an extreme and irreversible situation, provided they act according to correct medical practice. Some people have in fact spoken of the right to die or the right to die with dignity, meaning by this that individuals have a right to control when and how people end their lives, and it is worthwhile seeing what this means. At the most basic level, people have, as human beings, the right to control or determine the course of their own lives and to decide how poeple shall live (subject, of course, to their not infringing the rights of others to do the same). It follows from the fact that every individual is a human person that medical professionals must freely decide for myself and be responsible for all aspects of life within control (Friedlander 87). Others, of course, may deplore the choices that make and the personal morality and style of life adopt, but they must admit a right to make decisions and, so to speak, go to hell in a unique way. Even traditional Christian theologians admitted the right of a person to follow his or her conscience even if, objectively speaking, that conscience was morally awry or misguided. The right to moral autonomy or self-determination is in fact the basis of all other rights in that it would make no sense to speak of rights at all unless people were able to decide freely for themselves and be responsible for their human lives (Dowbiggin 82). This right to moral autonomy carries with it the subsidiary right to control the duration of ones life either by deliberately exposing oneself to certain death or by sacrificing ones life, or by accepting or refusing treatment which would prolong ones life, or by directly terminating ones life. With regard to the latter, there may well be religious reasons, or socio-cultural reasons, which make one reject the possibility of directly taking ones life (in the mainstream Judea-Christian tradition suicide has always been considered to be morally reprehensible), but from a purely moral point of view, it is difficult to deny that one does have a right to end ones life when there are serious reasons for such a course of action (Geisler and Moreland 63).

In sum, the medical evidence irresistibly and objectively points to the patient enjoying such a low degree of quality of life or human value that her life is not worth prolonging, that the proxy makes the decision to allow the patients life to be ended. Rather, it is because one reasonably supposes that the patient, had she the power to make a decision about prolonging her life, would in the circumstances see the prolongation of her life as morally pointless. Here the proxy must take account not just of the medical evidence but also of the patients moral (and religious) views about the value of human life and the process of dying. For example, one could envisage someone holding, on religious grounds, that a person is still a full person even though in a vegetable state and that it is the will of God that a person should continue to live in such a state in the expectation of some kind of future life after bodily death.

Works Cited

Allen, J. et al. Americans Attitudes toward Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide, 1936-2002. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 33 (2006), 6-9. Print.

Dowbiggin,. A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.

Friedlander, H. The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Print.

Garrett, T.M., Baillie, H.W., Garrett, R.M. Heath Care Ethics. Prentice Hall. 2000.

Geisler, N.L., Moreland, J.P. The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time. Praeger, 1990. Print.

Mahjabeen, Hassan. Euthanasia: Should humans be given the right to play God? 2002. Web.

Kaveny, C. Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia and the Law. Theological Studies, 58 (1997), 2-6. Print.

Keown, J. Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.

Somerville, M. The Case Against: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Free Inquiry, 23 (2003), 33. Print.

Introduction

Many consider the preservation of life to be the higher purpose of humanitys existence. Thousands of doctors graduating each year take an oath to use their considerable skills to assist those in pain and prolong their existence by all means possible. However, the question of survival becomes more complicated when the patient in question is experiencing unimaginable pain or feels like the remaining time is not worth experiencing. Some posit that providing such people with a safe and legal way to end their suffering is a humane, rational thing to do. Others oppose legalizing the practice on the grounds due to serious legal and medical obstacles. Nevertheless, euthanasia is a necessary addition to the standard end-of-life care practice because it will give patients the power to make conscious decisions about their fate.

Main body

To begin with, one must take into account the opinions of people who are in the unfortunate position of considering whether to end their own lives. Euthanasia is a simple choice to make, so relying on the perspective of those who never had to ponder this question seems shortsighted. Interested in researching the feelings of the terminally ill, Chapple, Ziebland, Mcpherson, and Herxheimer (2006) conducted a qualitative study on the subject. According to their findings, patients cited such reasons as pain, indignity, cognitive impairment, and the loss of control among the reasons to opt for assisted suicide (Chapple et al., 2006). For them, the opportunity to die safely in the time of their choosing surrounded by friends and family was preferable to suffering for an indeterminate period. Therefore, terminally ill patients, the people for whom the question of assisted suicide is of utmost importance, agree that euthanasia should be a legal practice.

Naturally, people nearing the end of their existence are not monoliths and exhibit a variety of opinions on the subject of assisted suicide. Some cite religious views for opposing the practice. For instance, a survey conducted by Sharp (2019) demonstrates that those who believe in life after death are considerably less likely to have positive opinions about euthanasia. Nevertheless, these findings only mean that religious persons themselves should not be subjected to euthanasia, not that it should not be an option available to the general populace. Medical professionals should take spiritual beliefs into account when holding consultations with patients and their families. However, the theological concerns of some individuals are not enough for instituting a blanket ban on the practice.

Moreover, many medical professionals, another group whose opinions are of high relevance, agree that euthanasia is sometimes the only option available when treating a terminally ill person. At times, it is no longer possible for the physician to help in any other way but heavily medicating the patient to alleviate pain. The person is hardly conscious or aware of their surroundings. They do not feel that they can fully control their own body and the direction of their life. Doctors should not have to inflict even more suffering upon the people entrusted in their care. Legalizing euthanasia would allow patients and medical professionals to work together to develop an end-of-life care plan, regardless of whether that means prolonging life or organizing an assisted suicide. As a result, physicians will be confident that they are acting in their charges best interests.

Some thinkers cite the Hippocratic Oath as the reason why healthcare professionals should not be assisting during suicides. According to them, this foundational principle of medicine clearly states that physicians should not harm their patients. However, the pledge created over 2,000 years ago does not reflect the intricacies of modern end-of-life care. Hippocrates contemporaries were not capable of prolonging life, mostly because they lacked relevant knowledge and tools. Moreover, their sense of morality does not reflect many of the current views. Their opinions on womens rights, slavery, and many other issues are no longer mainstream, and neither should be their view of physicians responsibilities. Lastly, there is no longer a single version of the Hippocratic Oath. In fact, many countries and even medical schools within one nation use their own versions that reflect their values, so modern graduating doctors can adjust the wording to express their perspective on euthanasia.

Of course, the biggest obstacle to legalizing the practice is whether it fits within the countrys existing laws. After all, most nations prohibit killings and punish those who commit such heinous acts. However, assisted suicide is not comparable to murder as the practice is the realm of professionals working with the full consent of the people willing to end their lives. Furthermore, one could argue that euthanasia is already legal by implication, according to several nations laws. For instance, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the countrys citizens the Right To Live with Personal Liberty and Human Dignity (Vyas, 2017). Additionally, the fundamental human rights, as listed by the United Nations, advocate for an existence free of torture where everyone may express their beliefs and opinions. Prolonging the life of a patient who is suffering against their will contradicts these rights, suggesting that everyone should be allowed to commit suicide if they desire to do so consciously (Vyas, 2017). As demonstrated, in some cases, human rights and fundamental laws advocate for clear a legal framework for assisted suicide.

Additionally, laws should serve the people; if the population of a country decides that they want to have a right to euthanasia, the government should not be able to deny them. For example, Oregon passed a law allowing assisted suicide through popular vote. It demonstrates that the citizens agree on the subject and want to make informed choices about their end-of-life care. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the article by Khaleeli and Cocozza (2017) recounts the problematic experiences of the people in the UK where euthanasia is not yet legal. In this case, the laws of the country are actively preventing its citizens from making decisions and perpetuate their suffering. Thus, the legalities surrounding end-of-life care and assisted suicide should reflect the desires of the population.

Despite its apparent benefits, legalizing euthanasia is a complicated process that requires considerable care in implementation. For instance, the opponents of the practice believe that it can be weaponized to harm vulnerable groups. The history of healthcare is rife with examples of medical professionals misusing medical procedures. Just as many indigenous and disabled women underwent sterilization against their will, people of color and other minorities can suffer from imposed assisted suicide. However, this argument underlines only that euthanasia legislation should be implemented prudently with all possible fail-safes. After all, sterilization is a necessary procedure that many people require. Similarly, assisted suicide should be made available with the power to choose whether it is the right option placed in the hands of the patient. The fear that euthanasia laws could harm vulnerable populations is valid but only emphasizes that the relevant legal framework should benefit those suffering from a disease.

Another popular concern regarding the issue is economic in nature. Opponents argue that financial constraints might force patients to end their lives despite them not being willing to. Some countries approach the state of egalitarian utopia or have government-sponsored universal healthcare, so it is hardly a concern there. However, in other nations, such as the United States of America, a prolonged illness can mean bankruptcy or life-long debt for the patient and their family. In this case, money can indeed act as an incentive for a person to end their life rather than ruin their loved ones future and financial security. Despite how awful such a decision may seem, it would still be the patients right to make it. The possibility of such a situation is a condemnation of the current American healthcare system rather than the right to assisted suicide.

Conclusion

Euthanasia should be a fundamental right because it gives patients the power to make conscious decisions about their fate. Many terminally ill people want to end their lives with dignity, and the government should not deny them this option. Moreover, medical professionals must always strive to provide the best care possible even if it means conducting assisted suicide procedures. It is essential to construct the relevant legislation with care and attention to detail to prevent abuses, but laws should ultimately reflect the desires of the people.

References

Chapple, A., Ziebland, S., Mcpherson, A., & Herxheimer, A. (2006). What people close to death say about euthanasia and assisted suicide: A qualitative study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(12), 706-710.

Khaleeli, H., & Cocozza, P. (2014). Assisted dying bill: I want to control how and when I die. The Guardian. Web.

Sharp, S. (2017). Belief in life after death and attitudes toward voluntary euthanasia. OMEGA  Journal of Death and Dying, 79(1), 72-89.

Vyas, D. (2017). Painful life or peaceful death- An look out. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(1), 8188.

In the current euthanasia-related discussion, identifying the moral rightness to kill or let a person die for the good plays an important role. On the one hand, doctors and nurses are obliged to preserve human life and relieve suffering at any cost (Vaughn, 2019). On the other hand, they need to respect the patients autonomy and right to self-determination and consider euthanasia the only option to help (Vaughn, 2019). It is impossible to neglect personal choices and the idea that people are responsible for their lives and the decision to end it on legal and ethical appropriate basics. It is the main idea of self-determination, but Vaughn (2019) underlines that the right to die should not compel others. Therefore, the roles and duties of every stakeholder must be properly defined.

Although euthanasia remains incompatible with health care and medicine, in some countries, doctors are allowed by law to end human life by prescribing increasing doses of strong and toxic painkillers. The physician confirms the diagnosis and defines if the patient can make clear judgments. Some people with depression believe that their suffering is unbearable and prefer euthanasia over other treatment methods. Physicians should prove that the decision is not impaired by a mental health disorder (in this case, an additional psychological examination is required).

Nurses roles vary from observing euthanasia requests to decision-making and aftercare. Nurses do not conduct euthanasia directly, but their participation is vital for other individuals, including support, education, respect, and listening. Finally, the patient and his/her family need to share their consent and make a decision based on life quality and suffering levels. The patient older than 18 years, capable, and diagnosed with a terminal illness, makes two oral requests within at least 15 days and one written request. Younger patients need parents or other caregivers approval in this case. Thus, there is no best position to make the euthanasia-related decision, but the doctor has the most scientific and reasonable explanation.

Reference

Vaughn, L. (2019). Bioethics: Principles, issues, and cases (4^th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Introduction

According to Buiting et al. (2009), voluntary or physician-assisted euthanasia is the act through which an individuals life is ended upon their request. Licensed physicians perform it and before the administration of a lethal substance; the patients must consent to the act. Moreover, the patient must be terminally ill, and the doctor must confirm that there are no other alternatives for treating the illness. Despite these guidelines, there have been debates regarding its implication in society.

Impact of voluntary or physician-assisted euthanasia on social values, morals, and norms

Goel (2009) notes that life is valuable, and everyone has a right to enjoy it. Social values recognize the importance of human life, and individuals turn to medicine for quality care when they are terminally ill. About Clark (2013), euthanasia does not seem to value human life as it ends it prematurely. Moreover, the act has been regarded as a form of suicide in countries that have not yet legalized it. Goel (2009) argues that suicide is morally wrong and against human values. Thus, euthanasia seems to destroy the fundamental concept of respecting life. In reference to upholding social values, hospitals are institutions established to promote health among individuals. Clarke (2013) argues that voluntary euthanasia limits the capability of these institutions to uphold the value of life and health in humans. Families play a significant role in safeguarding societal norms and values. Voluntary euthanasia has devastating effects on family members as they are left to cope with the premature deaths of their loved ones (Goel, 2009). Therefore, euthanasia limits the ability of families to promote the survival of society. Despite the negative impacts of voluntary euthanasia on social values, it seems to respect the autonomy of the patients. Autonomy is a critical part of the value systems and characters of individuals and should be respected.

Impact of voluntary or physician-assisted euthanasia on the nursing practice

Euthanasia is a violation of the integrity of the medical field. About Pereira (2011), nurses take oaths to save the lives of their patients at whatever cost. Thus, the act seems to be against their fundamental role of caring for and healing patients. Even though the motives relating to euthanasia are compassionate about ending the patients misery, the act interferes with their right to live. According to Holt (2008), euthanasia seems to be in line with the moral codes in medicine. However, the moral codes can only be respected if the patients consent to the act and the nurses adhere to ethical codes of conduct. Thus, euthanasia enables nurses to put the interest of the patients before their own and recognize that individual values vary across the population. Clarke (2013) notes that euthanasia is slowly being accepted within the nursing profession and nurses are acknowledging the respect for the patients decisions in end-of-life care. Despite this opinion, Goel (2009) recognizes that performing euthanasia is likely to result in emotional distress among the nurses. Nurses in palliative care have personal relationships with the patients and hence are likely to be shattered when they die. The grieving process is more devastating when euthanasia is involved.

Conclusion

Euthanasia has negative implications as it fails to recognize the value of human life. It also has negative effects on families and it leads to distress and devastation. However, it seems to respect autonomy, which is a critical part of human life. On one hand, euthanasia seems to have negative implications on the nursing profession as it results in grief and distress. On the other hand, it ensures that the moral codes of medicine are upheld.

References

Buiting, H., Delden, J. v., Onwuteaka-Philpsen, B., Rietjens, J., Rurup, M., Gevers, J.,& Maas, P. v. (2009). Reporting of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands: descriptive study. BMC Medical Ethics, 10(18), 1-10.

Clarke, L. (2013). Mental health nursing and the debate on assisted dying. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 20(9), 655661.

Goel, V. (2009). Euthanasia  A dignified end of life! International NGO Journal, 3(12), 224-231.

Holt, J. (2008). Nurses attitudes to euthanasia: the influence of empirical studies and methodological concerns on nursing practice. Nursing Philosophy, 9(5), 257272.

Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Biomedical Ethics, 18(2), 38-45.

Introduction

The practice of mercy killing or euthanasia is dated from ancient Greece. However, its spread was attributed to the advancement of medicine, which facilitated the creation of ether and morphine, which made medicalized suicide a possibility. These developments made medical practitioners start advocating for analgesics to relieve the pain of death. In the 1870s, Samuel Williams defined euthanasia and proposed using anesthetics, such as morphine, to intentionally terminate a patients life (Kumar et al., 2021). Since then, the debate about the ethics of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has raged in the United States and other countries, culminating in 1906-1907 in an Ohio bill that proposed the legalization of PAS in the region but was ultimately defeated (Marine, 2018). Nevertheless, the campaigns to authorize euthanasia have legalized the practice in various states, such as Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and California. The disputations propounded for and against PAS in the 19th century are the same as contemporary arguments. Euthanasia elicits ethical, medical, religious, and legal contention, making it a controversial topic relevant to the care of patients.

Argument for Euthanasia

Euthanasia shows regard for patient autonomy which is a critical medical ethic. The principle of autonomy allows patients to control their treatment process. If patients request PAS, the physicians can only expound on the risks associated with the practice but cannot object to the patients wishes. Additionally, in most cases, patients who opt for euthanasia are critically ill, most of whom are aged and want to die with dignity. Allowing euthanasia gives patients who are already facing death the power to decide the end of their lives (Dugdale et al., 2019). Since most of their conditions are incurable, such patients no longer have control of their lives; hence it is only right to allow them to choose how they want to die. It is unethical to keep patients alive if it is against their will. The proponents of euthanasia argue that if individuals have the right to live, they should have a right to die as well (Jakhar et al., 2021). Therefore, terminally ill patients are entitled to decide whether or not they want to be euthanized.

PAS relieves the pain and suffering of patients and their families. The core principle of medicine is to alleviate patients pain caused by various ailments. Nevertheless, patients suffering from life-threatening and incurable maladies are often in immense pain that cannot be relieved despite the available treatment methods (Jakhar et al., 2021). When healing is not feasible and suffering becomes unbearable, euthanasia can be used as a last resort. Euthanizing patients experiencing chronic pain is better than objecting only for the patients to attempt suicide in a bid to end their suffering (Dugdale et al., 2019). The patients agony is worsened by the awareness of the emotional and financial burden that their prolonged stay in hospital or palliative care has on their family members. In such cases, the patients have a right to terminate their lives. Similarly, euthanasia lessens the agony and burden of the family members. Terminal diseases affect not only the patients but their relatives and friends, who have to witness the suffering of a loved one too. Therefore, freeing critically ill patients from pain should be considered humane and an act of compassion.

Euthanasia avails medical resources to other patients who are in dire need. Due to the advancement of technology in the healthcare sector, a patients life may be prolonged, even in hopeless situations. For example, a patient may remain in a vegetative state for over a decade on the life support machine and eventually die. Therefore, in cases where the healthcare environments have scarce resources, terminally ill patients who voluntarily opt for euthanasia should be supported. This is because it frees critical resources to other patients who have a chance of survival (Buchbinder, 2018). It is crucial to understand that terminally ill patients will die at some point because their ailments are incurable. Thus it may be prudent to allow PAS if the patients willingly request it because it provides an opportunity to save the lives of other people who have a high chance of survival. Furthermore, it saves the patients family members time and resources because it alleviates the financial burden and time spent to and from the hospital. Thus, euthanasia frees up vital healthcare resources, which are critical in saving more lives.

Argument Against Euthanasia

Non-religious arguments against PAS suggest that pain can be alleviated due to the latest advancement in healthcare practices. The introduction of modern therapeutics and palliative care has considerably helped patients diagnosed with incurable illnesses. A study shows that most cancer patients report a concern about intolerable physical discomfort and fear of being abandoned (Dugdale et al., 2019). Similarly, opponents of PAS are concerned that in Oregon, over 70% of cancer patients who request to be euthanized have emotional distress, but less than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist to rule out clinical depression (Dugdale et al., 2019). This might partly explain why the majority feel pressure to request PAS because of not wanting to burden others. However, modern medicine can help manage physical distress and psychological and spiritual stressors associated with illnesses. The team approach to palliative care can improve the patients quality of life and extend support to family caregivers who may benefit from referral to individual or family counseling and provide growth opportunities. Therefore, since physical distress can be reduced and the burden of caregiving made more bearable, there is no basis for euthanasia.

The promotion of life and health is a fundamental goal and principle for the ethical standards of physicians. The profession may be described as one of compassionate service for people who are sick, alienated, wounded, alone, vulnerable, and afraid. Therefore, PAS damages terminally ill patients trust in health practitioners to heal. From this perspective, euthanasia violates fundamental values, especially the Hippocratic Oath that dictates medics pledge not to harm (Marine, 2018). Authorizing providers to participate in PAS undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives and become official dispensers of death rather than the art of healing. This practice may discourage research for new treatments and cures for different ailments. In addition, the legalization of euthanasia is the first step on a slippery slope that may contribute to involuntary killing, where individuals perceived to be a problem or undesirable could be murdered (Dugdale et al., 2019). In this case, giving physicians the authority to decide who lives and who dies can lead to possible abuse. Thus, patients may start to fear for their lives when hospitalized.

The opposition to practicing euthanasia is based on prevailing traditional religious views. For example, in Catholicism, human life is sacred and needs to be respected. In this context, life does not belong to individuals but is a gift from God. Thus, the sanctity of life must be respected and protected from the time of conception until natural death. Christians condemn euthanasia because they believe that only God has the ultimate power over human life. When patients nearing the end of life express fears of losing control or being deprived of their dignity, they should be shown affection and provided with needed emotional support. This may make them more contented and allow nature to take its course rather than assisting them in committing suicide. The compassion accorded to patients by family members and practitioners may help them accept death as a natural process and not be hastened or delayed. Therefore, all people should be valued regardless of age, religion, race, or gender because the Bible command, Thou shalt not kill (Kumar et al., 2021). However, euthanasia creates loopholes for exploitation that violates the sanctity of life.

Conclusion

PAS remains a controversial topic relevant in the world today. The acceptance of euthanasia in some states has been influenced by the respect for patient rights that gives them the power to decide to die and relieve them from the pain of incurable diseases. Nevertheless, there is an ethical difficulty in interpreting the concept of a patients autonomy versus the professional responsibilities of physicians. PAS violates fundamental values, especially the Hippocratic Oath that dictates practitioners pledge not to harm. For this reason, non-religious proponents against euthanasia have argued that medical advances and palliative care have made it possible for patients to have the best quality of life until the very last moment. This view is supported by Christianity beliefs in the sanctity of life. In this context, people should accept death as a natural process and should not be hastened or delayed.

References

Buchbinder, M. (2018). Access to aid-in-dying in the United States: Shifting the debate from rights to justice. American Journal of Public Health, 108(6), 754-759.

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

Jakhar, J., Ambreen, S., & Prasad, S. (2021). Right to life or right to die in advanced dementia: Physician-assisted dying. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11.

Kumar, A., Avasthi, A., & Mehra, A. (2021). Euthanasia: A DebateFor and against. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research, 55(2), 91-96. Web.

Marine, J.E. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide: Why physicians should oppose it [PowerPoint slides]. Web.

With just the mention of death, it is a real shock to the world. Then, it is surprising how one can comfortably walk into a medical center and demand to die. Micheles case could not be the only one in the world but watching her die is flabbergasting (Bueller, 2012). However, arguments as to why it is not necessary to accept euthanasia and the counterargument are explained below.

Firstly, it would be hard to get assisted in committing suicide for fear of death. Despite the sufferings that people go through in life, the majority would not wish to die. Thus, people do all they can to ensure that they live. For instance, they spend all their money and energy as they rely on life support machines in hospitals. Michele seems to have suffered so much for her to make such a decision. She should have known how valuable life is. It is not easy to accept to die for fear of death, unlike Causse, who gives up her life voluntarily.

Secondly, euthanasia may not be the option because patients have a right to know information. When a patient suffers much in life, especially from a terminal disease, they tend to lose hope and may wish to hurry up death. They may lose hope for lack of knowledge about other options to make them survive with less suffering (Santoro & Bennet, 2018). Therefore, as a medical practitioner, Erika should have questioned Micheles decision to die, and perhaps she would have helped her change her mind. Erika seems to only be concerned with patients decisions when she argues that if patients change their decisions, she returns the euthanasia prescriptions. If she was concerned, Causse, who looked energetic and full of life, would have changed her decision.

Thirdly, Christian values of righteousness do not allow human beings to end their life whether by themselves or assisted. Thus, Christians focus on obeying the ten commandments to attain holiness. Committing suicide is one of the commandments that should not be broken if one wishes to remain holy and succeed in receiving a reward for eternal life (Zeigler, 2017). If Michele did not have such value for righteousness, then Erika should have intervened. Both Erica and Michele seem to be ignorant of the Christian value of righteousness that pushes them to agree with euthanasia. Contrary, I would not accept to agree with mercy killing, for I value holiness and life after death.

Fourthly, Christians argue that life is sacred and no one has the right to take it. When God created man, he placed human beings as special and sacred beings. He put them in charge of other things on earth and valued their lives. Even after sinning against Him and were subjected to suffering, He loved them by sending them his only son who would redeem lives. Jesus, the son of God, demonstrated Gods love by loving all kinds of people and reached out to those who suffered, for He also valued life. Therefore, we should value our sacred life and not try to take it away no matter what the sufferings are.

On the contrary, the principle of autonomy would not allow one to disagree with a patient. When Michelle Causse approached Erika on the issue of euthanasia, she might have no option but to give in to her request. According to these principles, patients decisions are to be respected, and no one has a right to refute what the patient wishes. Therefore, Erica had to agree to euthanasia based on the principle of autonomy.

In conclusion, agreeing to euthanasia is one of the hardest decisions to make. Basing on fear of death, Christian values, and some ethical principles that govern decision-making, one can make a sound decision. As explained above, medical practitioners may get their hands tied once autonomy comes into the picture. Thus, the decision about whether to accept euthanasia or not depends on the values and ethical principles now and still in the future.

References

Bueller, D. (2012) Do you agree with euthanasia?  Womans Assisted Suicide Gets Filmed [Video]. Web.

Santoro, J. D. & 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.

Zeigler, M. W. (2017). Christian hope among Rivals: How Life-Organizing Stories Anticipate the End of Evil. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Introduction

Euthanasia is a Greek word made up of two words. Eu meaning good and thanatos meaning death (Definition of Euthanasia 1). It is can therefore be translated loosely as good death. In the modern context, it is the practice of terminating an individuals life whose life is considered intolerable. To ensure the reduction of pain, this process is carried out in a way that subjects the patients to the minimum possible pain. This involves means like lethal injections, removing the patient from life support, or overdosing the patient. Euthanasia may also be described as mercy killing or the assisted suicide of the patient by the medical staff or the patients family. Many understand euthanasia as an act of a doctor who injects a patient with lethal concoction to kill to stop immense pain. For years, Euthanasia has been a controversial subject in most countries and homes. It is for this reason that this paper will focus on the pros and cons of carrying out mercy killing.

There are four types of euthanasia, they include direct and voluntary. In this case the patient chooses how they wish to die and proceed to carry it out by themselves without any assistance or if there is assistance, the person usually helping them are usually unaware of this fact. Under voluntary but indirect, the method used to kill the patient is often chosen in advance. Direct and involuntary euthanasia is done for the patient without them agreeing to it (Fletcher 223). Finally, we have indirect and involuntary, this normally done by the hospital when they decide that nothing further can be done for the patient and as such they remove the life support system (Fletcher 223-4).

Arguments Pro Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a classic case of freedom of choice. The patient has the right to choose how he or she wishes to die in regards to their terminal illnesses that they are unable to live with the condition anymore. The patient decides on whether he or she wants to continue living with their condition. This will give the patient an opportunity to die in dignity as well as avoid the excruciating pain and embrace a timely death. The extent to this right is however central to the individuals autonomy and his integrity.

The making of Euthanasia legal will assist in the alleviation of pain of most terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovering and wish that they had the option of ending their lives in the most humane and painless way possible. For those who have conditions that the pain medications do nothing to alleviate, it is only fair that they be given the option of ending their misery in this way. This will not only help in ending the suffering of their family members who are tortured by the fact that their loved ones are in unbearable pain and that there is nothing they can do about it. This should however, only apply to those patients who are agreeable to Euthanasia, because it would be morally wrong to use euthanasia on a patient who is against it for whatever reason.

Euthanasia should be legalized, in that the cost of taking care of these terminally ill patients can become quite expensive and will eventually become too much for the family to pay the hospital expenses. In most cases, the patients usually require very specialized equipment to keep them going and to keep their organs functioning properly. The cost of maintaining them in this conditions or supported by these machines are very high and at some point it becomes too much for the family to handle. Legalizing euthanasia will help the family to at least, not incur exorbitant medical costs. It is for this reason that euthanasia should be made legal.

Keeping a patient on life support when the family members know that there is nothing that can be done for them to make them better and that all that is being done is only to make them comfortable is at most cruel to the family. This drains them emotionally and as such, they cannot function well on their other daily activities. Their lives now revolve on the patient who is not getting any better and as such, no one can move on with their lives. This can become quite draining emotionally for the relatives and may in turn lead to medical health conditions for the family members as they are constantly worrying about the patient, and that is not good for the members.

Legalizing euthanasia will help prevent the rising rates of people who decide to end their own lives after they have come to the decision that they cannot take the physical pain their condition puts them. This will ensure that a professional does euthanasia, and that the patient will experience minimal pain having opted for this method of ending their lives. This will have resulted when the patients quality of life has become difficult and uncomfortable as a result of too much physical or emotional pain (Pellegrino 3118).

More and more people are getting sick currently, it is for this reason that some people would argue that the hospitals are becoming over crowded since there are just too many patients. For this reason alone, some argue that euthanasia be legalized, since when a patient has no hope of recovering from a terminal illness, it is pointless to have them occupy hospital space when there is a different patient whose ailments are not terminal who could be using that space. The argument here is that there could be more bed space for those patients whose diseases curable. This also helps to free up funds that may be used to help other people (Darren 1).

Arguments against Euthanasia

There are those who are however opposed to the use of Euthanasia. They argue that it undermines the value and respect for all human rights. They fear that the set guidelines will not be able to avoid sliding down the slippery slope, which will eventually lead to the use of involuntary euthanasia and as a result in the selective devaluation of the lives of those dearest to us. The legalization of the use of euthanasia will put pressure on the terminally ill patients to conform in order to relieve their family and friends from the burden, both economical and emotional, of having to take care of them and worry about them as well (McCarrick 2).

Taking the life of another person should not be rationalized no matter the situation. Taking the life of another person should not be rationalized no matter the situation. The human life has to be protected under any circumstance or situation. Medicine has advanced since years of past to help prolong the life span of man, the same medicine cannot be used to take the same lives that it is supposed to be protecting and healing. It would be a conflict of ideas and purpose if euthanasia were to be legalized and offered in our hospitals, the same ones that are supposed t be providing health care services to the population (Maisie 1).

One can never be sure the motives of those pushing a patient to undergo Euthanasia. Man is known to be unscrupulous when he or she is after something that may benefit him or her. In order to benefit from it relatives of the patient may try to persuade him to make a decision that favors them. The relatives may be eyeing the patients wealth in that they want to inherit it when they die. It is therefore going to be difficult to determine whose motives are genuine when they propose euthanasia for their loved ones (Maisie 1).

There is no doctor who can give a definite timeline as to when an individual or patient is to die. If euthanasia is made legal, it will lead to very many unlawful deaths that with advanced treatments could have been survived by the patient. In addition to this, legalizing euthanasia would empower the law abusers and as such increase the distrust of the public towards the medical practitioners (Maisie 1).

Apart from these factors, euthanasia would also lead to a decline in the medical care offered in our hospitals. This will result because the research companies will no longer find it essential to research on better modes of treatments as they will have become lax in their work. They will argue that there is an alternative way to end the suffering of the patients, which is euthanasia, and as such, no research will be done to help find the cures to these diseases.

Doctors on the hand have a problem with euthanasia as it goes against the Hippocratic Oath that they took before they were given the powers to practice medicine. The role of all medical practitioners is to protect life and as a result, this does not allow them to take part in the killing of the patients for whatever reason (Darren 1).

It is never clear that a patient really wants to die. Everyone fears death and as such, one cannot say that death is the better option to the physical suffering and pain that they are experiencing. An individual should only take euthanasia as an option if and only if they really want it and that they understand their condition in that nothing can be done for them and that the pain is too much for them to bear or that the pain cannot be managed (Darren 1).

Perhaps the biggest con is that euthanasia is immoral. To take ones life regardless of the circumstances is considered to be morally wrong by most major religions in the world. For instance, the Roman Catholics consider this murder and is not to be condoned by the church or the society. Although the Hindus think it might be best to help in killing an individual so as to bring an end to their misery, they also believe this will affect the balance of life and rebirth. The Islam also forbids all forms of euthanasia or mercy killing. There are however some religions that are not totally against mercy killing. The protestant for instance have a more liberal opinion on the use of euthanasia. The Shintoists also believe that should a person ask for assistance to end their lives, then you are obliged to do so (Darren 1).

Conclusion

In conclusion, euthanasia should not be legalized, as it will help to create many social problems. Human life is sacred to many cultural societies in the world. Therefore, it should be treated as such. The legalization of the use of euthanasia will only serve to devalue the human life and make it worthless. It could also lead to the development of people feigning illnesses in order to have euthanasia administered to them. The church is against this because only God has the right to take ones life away as well as give it. euthanasia if legalized will give man the power to usurp Gods duties and this is considered unacceptable in many religions. As pointed out in the arguments above, it is important that euthanasia remains illegal by all means.

Works Cited

Darren, Sweeper. Euthanasia- Pros and Cons of Mercy Killing. (n.d.). 2010. Web.

Definition of Euthanasia. 1998. Web.

Fletcher, Joseph. The Courts and Euthanasia. Law, Medicine & Health Care 15.4 (1987/1988): 223-230.

Maisie, Moo. Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. 2007. Web.

McCarrick, Pat. Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. (n.d.). 2010. Web.

Pellegrino, Edmund. Ethics. Journal of the American Medical Association 265.23(1991): 3118-3119.

Introduction to Euthanasia

Euthanasia(“good death”) is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. It is also known as ‘mercy killing.’ In many countries, there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia.

Ethical Foundations Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia has become an ethical issue and the focus of some of our most controversial public policy questions. I oppose the legalization of euthanasia. But we must do more than simply disagree with its proponents. It is possible, using the belief structures of the Judeo-Christian tradition and other reflections, to develop a persuasive understanding of human life that can serve as the foundation for an ethic that would oppose the legalization of euthanasia.

Religious Perspectives on Euthanasia

Some persons question whether the concrete norm opposing euthanasia should be a matter of public morality. To answer this question, we must turn to our foundational principle. As a society, we must ask ourselves, How ‘sacred’ is life? Will that natural sense of awe about life, that natural desire not to be vulnerable, be enhanced or threatened by making euthanasia legal?

The Slippery Slope of Euthanasia

Individuals who are against euthanasia on a religious basis are of the idea that life is a gift from God and that only He has the power to decide when an individual’s life ends. They argue that God created human beings in a sacred way, and for this reason, human life is sacred by default. Individuals don’t decide how and when they are born; therefore, they should not be given the freedom to choose how and when to die (Young). Legalizing euthanasia could lead to its abuse in that individuals might be euthanized by their enemies when they are not ready to die. Christians argue that God has the final decision when it comes to human life.

God decides when human life starts and ends; therefore, engaging in acts of euthanasia is sinful and is against Him. This is a common argument among Christians, Jews, and Muslims (Scherer). Other beliefs, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, have a complex point of view on euthanasia. Scholars from the two systems of beliefs argue that euthanasia is tolerable in exceptional circumstances. This point of view, however, does not have universal acceptance among Buddhists and Hindus.

Individuals who are against euthanasia based on the slippery slope idea argue that once the government, through its healthcare system, starts to kill its people, it sets a dangerous example by crossing a line that should never have been crossed. Government laws are subject to change through amendments (Young). It is of great concern that once euthanasia has been accepted in society. It will progressively change from voluntary euthanasia to non-voluntary and finally to involuntary euthanasia.

Legalizing euthanasia may lead to negative consequences that may not be seen at the time of law enactment (Scherer). Such negative consequences may include pressure for disabled people to request euthanasia to reduce their family’s burden. Patients may also request euthanasia because of the doctors’ diagnosis that they have a terminal condition which might be wrong. Researchers may also become complacent and discouraged to research more into palliative treatment and cure for terminal illness.

References:

1. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Basics”. Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity: https://cbhd.org/content/euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide-basics
2. “Euthanasia – An Overview”. BBC Ethics Guide: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/introduction.shtml
3. “Arguments Against Euthanasia”. The Arguments for and Against Euthanasia URL: https://sites.google.com/site/theargumentsforandagainsteuth/arguments-against-euthanasia
4. “Euthanasia: How ‘Sacred’ Is Life?” The Independent URL: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/euthanasia-how-sacred-is-life-7936595.html