Category: Euthanasia

Euthanasia: An Overview and Global Stance

Pope John Paul II believed Euthanasia and assisted suicide were never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the quality of life itself. Ending a person’s life to lessen their suffering is known as Euthanasia, usually referred to as mercy killing or a decent death. According to the School of Medicine, the patient given a deadly dose of medication is during active Euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia is where the patient passes away with artificial life support left on or without it.

As of writing, Euthanasia is currently legal in several nations, including Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, Colombia, Australia, the United States, France, and New Zealand. However, it is forbidden in the Philippines since it conflicts with religious communities. Even though some nations have approved Euthanasia as a peaceful death option, it must be illegal because it devalues human life.

The Catholic Church and the Sanctity of Life

The Catholic Church, first and foremost, regards human dignity and the gift of life as sacred. Taking someone’s life or killing is a bad and forbidden thing to do. Furthermore, the Catholic Church believes that we all have equal value and we all have the right to life and to be alive. There is no such thing as a person who has no right to exist in this world. The Catholic Church also believes that we must all look out for one another in order to promote the good of our society and human dignity.

Religious Foundations Against Euthanasia

According to the Institute of Clinical Bioethics, Christians believe that birth and death are part of God’s creation and that we should respect that. Even if someone wishes to die, it is not our responsibility to end their life. No one has the right to do so, whether they are an elderly person, a sick person, or a dying person. It is also wrong to ask someone to kill another person, even for themselves, because it violates divine law and every individual’s dignity. It’s as if we’re rejecting God and His will for our lives. Those who request their death are sometimes misinterpreted as wanting Euthanasia; perhaps they simply want to feel love and longing for support.

Catholicism, Morality, and the Opposition to Euthanasia

The Catholic Church has always valued human life. We are taught that our lives are given to us by God, they belong to God, and therefore someday we will return to God. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consist in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.” So it’s obvious where Catholicism stands on the issue. Euthanasia is a sin and a dishonor to our Creator. According to, The Church teaches that as life is a gift from God, it should not be cut short. When our lives end is not something over which we have control. It is the decision of God, the Creator. God created man out of love with the intention of sharing that love with them. People were made to cherish both God and one another. In addition, God provided people with good labor to perform when He created them so that they would feel His kindness and reflect His likeness in the way they treated one another and the environment.

Additionally, as humans, we are always responsible for our actions. But there are things that can influence these actions. One such influence is concupiscence or, simply, passion. Passion is either a tendency toward, beneath, or away from dangerous or unpleasant things (Limayo, C. n.d.). One should not use his or her own emotions to cloud a person’s judgment. Even though Euthanasia is considered “mercy killing,” sadness or guilt of seeing someone suffer is still not a justifiable reason to end someone’s life.

References:

1. School of Medicine. Euthanasia.
2. The Week. (2021, April 23). Where is euthanasia legal?
3. Saunders, P.  The Catholic Church and Assisted Suicide.
4. Institute of Clinical Bioethics. Christianity and Euthanasia.
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2277.
6. Di Camillo, J. (2013, February 11). Life Is a Gift.
7. Pasley, M. (2019, November 22). The Theological Implications of Euthanasia.
8. Limayo, C. Concupiscence: A Human Weakness.

Understanding Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a painless death; a few may also say euthanasia is an undeviating act for taking lifestyles via prescription drugs. A patient that has a brief enlargement of existence can deal with such trouble with their healthcare provider. Counseling may be provided before the very last choice is made by way of the doctor and the patient. At any time, the patient reserves the proper to draw from the system. The patient needs to have good cause for the method before a health practitioner will approve this kind of request.

Written documentation may be obtained from the ethics of medical and research at the internet site, through his/her medical doctor’s workplace. If the medical doctor has agreed with the affected person that that is the fine alternative, both patient and doctor could be covered through prison-binding files and legal guidelines of that country. The patient additionally has the right to request their own family, buddies, and spouses to be gifts throughout the time of this procedure. This form of euthanasia can be taken into consideration as a voluntary act.

Laws Regarding Euthanasia in Louisiana

The extermination of life is restrained in Louisiana and throughout the complete America. Louisiana proper to lifestyles’ middle for clinical Ethics systematized into law Louisiana’s natural loss of life Act for consenting or denying medicinal treatment which presently explicitly peruses: ‘not anything in this component may be translated to excuse, approve, or choose leniency slaughtering or killing or to permit any agreed or practical act or oversight to end existence aside from to permit the characteristic procedure of passing on’.

A Case Study: Mr. Noel Conway’s Fight for Assisted Death

Mr. Noel Conway is a 67 12 months antique terminally sick man who needs to exercise the law on assisted loss of life so that he may work in an extra dignified manner. The request was supplied and denied three times in the court docket. Mr.Conway found out that the Suicide Act of 1961 contradicts article eight in regard to human life and privateness to the judges. But to no avail. The judges did now not flow on the act of euthanasia.

Mr. Conway pleaded his case on the felony be counted, and he said that he’ll continue to come earlier than the courts till his request is granted. Mr. Conway has a breathing device that incorporates each breath for him. Despite the fact that he is diseased and ridden, his best choice is to smother him to death by putting off the respiratory tubes in his nostrils. Mr. Conway feels as though his rights as a human become no longer simplest granted but disregarded.

Mr. Conway isn’t anticipated to live to skip any other yr. Perhaps if he had presented his request underneath six months of existence while in a strong body of thoughts, he might have had a higher threat of dying, a peaceful loss of life, and announcing good-bye to like ones at his own enjoyment, any other motive why his request was denied is due to the fact he changed into relying upon his medical doctor to help with this act. But the laws are not in the choice of the act and are strictly prohibited.

Personal Opinion on the Morality of Euthanasia

I am towards euthanasia due to the fact it is morally wrong. The way to brush aside human life because of illnesses and sicknesses strips away the cost of mankind. This can additionally start a trend within the clinical subject for the use of euthanasia as treatment in preference to a cure. For spiritual reasons, this takes lifestyles from the arms of better religious energy.

References:

1. Louisiana’s Natural Death Act: RS 40:1299.fifty eight.10. (n.d.). Louisiana Revised Statutes. Retrieved from http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=102733
2. Noel Conway Case and Euthanasia: Young, T. (2021, May 12). Assisted Dying Law Blocked My Attempt to Die Peacefully – and on My Own Terms. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/12/assisted-dying-law-blocked-my-attempt-to-die-peacefully-and-on-my-own-terms
3. Ethical Considerations of Euthanasia: Scherer, N. (n.d.). Ethical Considerations of Euthanasia. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 8(2), 357-369.
4. Euthanasia and Religious Beliefs: Scherer, N. (n.d.). Euthanasia: A Muslim’s Perspective. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 8(2), 375-378.
5. Euthanasia and Moral Argument: Kamm, F. M. (2000). Physician-Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, and Intending Death. Bioethics, 14(3), 197-221.
6. Euthanasia’s Impact on Medical Ethics: Hendry, J., Pasterfield, D., & Lewis, R. (2019). ‘A Very Noble Profession’: Exploring the Moral and Ethical Issues Surrounding Assisted Dying for Patients with Motor Neurone Disease. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(2), 92-97.
7. Legal and Ethical Dimensions of Euthanasia: Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation. Cambridge University Press.
8. Euthanasia and the Sanctity of Life: Sumner, L. W. (2011). Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law. Oxford University Press.

Understanding Euthanasia: A Complex Decision

Euthanasia is the deliberate ending of someone’s life, usually to alleviate suffering. Doctors sometimes perform Euthanasia when people with terminal illnesses and severe pain request it. It is a complex process and involves weighing many factors. Local laws, someone’s physical and mental health, and their personal beliefs and wishes all play a role.

Different Types of Euthanasia Explained

There are different types of Euthanasia, one of which is assisted suicide, also known as physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS is when a doctor knowingly helps someone in ending their life. This person is likely experiencing persistent and unending suffering. They may have also been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Their doctor will determine the most effective, painless method.

Doctors often prescribe a drug that will allow people to end their lives. They are also called active and passive. Active purposely giving someone a lethal dose of a sedative is considered active Euthanasia. On the other hand, passive is withholding or limiting life-sustaining treatments to hasten death. A doctor may also prescribe increasingly high doses of pain relievers. Over time, the quantities may become toxic. Lastly, it can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary Euthanasia is when a person asks for assistance in ending their life voluntarily.  The person must express their full consent and show they know all the details. In nonvoluntary Euthanasia, the decision to end a person’s life is made by another party. Usually, a close relative makes a choice. When someone is totally unconscious or permanently incapacitated, this is typically done.

Legality of Euthanasia Worldwide

For centuries, people have debated the ethics and legality of Euthanasia, and some states and countries allow this procedure. In the United States, PAS is legal in Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and Hawaii. PAS is legal in Switzerland, Germany, and Japan outside the United States. And other countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, and Canada.

The Church’s Perspective on Euthanasia

The majority of Christians oppose Euthanasia. The arguments are often founded on the belief that God provides life and that humans are created in God’s image. God has given us life. God created all life. Birth and death are natural processes that God designed, and we must honor them. As a result, no human being has the authority to take an innocent person’s life, even if that person wishes to die. Human beings are valued because they are created in the image of God. Human life has inherent dignity and value since it was made in God’s vision for the particular destiny of partaking in God’s life.

Nothing or no one can allow the death of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, a newborn or an adult, an older adult, a person suffering from an incurable sickness, or a dying person. Furthermore, no one may seek this killing, whether for themselves or another person assigned to their care, nor may they consent to it, either expressly or implicitly, nor can any authority properly propose or approve such an action.

It is a breach of divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human being, a crime against life, and an attack on humankind. Although the individual’s guilt may be mitigated or absent in certain situations, the mistake of judgment into which the conscience falls, possibly in good faith, does not change the character of this act of killing, which will always be something to be rejected. The appeals of terminally ill persons who sometimes ask for death should not be interpreted as a genuine desire for Euthanasia; instead, it is nearly invariably an agonized cry for aid and love.

The church’s teaching details how we are responsible for our acts. Within the subject of the issue, it is done with the knowledge and will. Euthanasia, as stated, is mainly done by doctors to patients with terminal illnesses, for example. Having to decide on this act is done with full consent, which is entirely deliberate. The act is taken with thought and complete understanding of the consequences and how it should be taken beneficially.

The Church Teaching can somehow counter these acts because, as God taught and commanded that no man shall kill another, the act does so. As an example, for doctors, even with full deliberate consent, it can be viewed as having it to be their own decision or choice to have a patient end their life due to a terminal illness. It can be openly viewed as an act of killing but somehow is done legally, not religious-wise.

That is why the Church’s Teaching somehow counters the idea of Euthanasia. The Church Teaching directly follows God’s commandments and is, if not entirely, opposed to any forms and acts of killing. Although some people, may they be Christian or not by religion, do agree to give their consent to the act. The Human Act also gives both good and bad values for why the act was done. The Church Teaching defines this act as being a freely chosen informed act, which does the act, as tackled in the issue, being openly considered as a choice to be decided and gives a solid belief to a good or bad value.

References:

1. The School of Medicine. (n.d.). Understanding Euthanasia: A Complex Decision.
2. The Week. (2021). Countries Where Euthanasia Is Legal.
3. Saunders, W. (n.d.). The Catholic Church’s Perspective on Euthanasia.
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC, 2277.
5. Di Camillo, J. (2013). The Church’s Teachings on Euthanasia.
6. Pasley, M. (2019). Reflecting God’s Likeness: Human Purpose and Responsibility.

Euthanasia: A Controversial Ethical Debate

Although euthanasia is an inadmissible crime in the eyes of the church and law, many say it takes away the patient’s basic human right of being able to dispose of their life when they are pleased. The discussion of euthanasia is a progressing one that is covered with a lot of contention in regard to its morals. Be that as it may, the recurrence of this point being bantered by doctors, powerful figures, and the media has become more conspicuous now than at any other time in recent memory.

The Intricacies of Medical and Public Opinion

This issue is an ethical inquiry attributable to three key requests. Well-being is proficient must place into thought three attributes before settling on a definitive choice. Initially, one must solicit whether an end to a patient’s life is ever right, even in extreme and constant agony or terminal sickness. On the off chance that one reacts in the agreed, at that point, one must lay out the conditions under which willful extermination would be moral. At long last, one must recognize allowing one to pass on and effectively slaughtering them. Physicians have the alternative of infusing a deadly medication or giving an overdose as a method for helping somebody end their own life.

This type of killing is dynamic willful euthanasia and is illicit in all states in the US. As of now, three states – Washington, Oregon, and Montana – permit helped suicide or withdrawal of treatment. In this way, regardless of whether he is well-being proficient, he accepts that it is a patient’s entitlement to pick when and how. Everyone has the option to figure out what heading their lives should take, and it is their very own obligation. An examination directed among adult Americans demonstrates that about 80% of them bolster the thought.

They contend that somebody experiencing a terminal disease is a condition that no therapeutic mediation can invert. It is improper to expose a person to a moderate yet agonizing demise. Such an individual should be helped to end his/her life so as to evade a drawn-out agonizing death. This may free up assets and equipment. Critically ill patients, or individuals that are in irreversible states, utilize an enormous segment of the therapeutic financing accessible.

While this is in no way, shape, or form a decent method to take, it is just an added advantage of euthanasia. These individuals, rather than going through weeks, months, or even years utilizing these assets, could rest in harmony, all while setting aside money and space for the medical clinics. No one needs to be helpless before any other person, particularly not an illness or affliction that has controlled your life for such a long time. The greatest advantage of euthanasia is just having a decision. It returns individuals in charge of their own life when it makes a difference the most. This gives individuals an incredible feeling of harmony and trust in their families.

Potential Pitfalls and Concerns Surrounding Euthanasia

In spite of the fact that there are numerous advantages to experiencing euthanasia, there are a number of negatives that lead to the contention if it’s actually the best decision to make for a person. By enabling our physicians to effectively euthanize individuals, they will start to consider killing to be an answer, and it will start to be abused. This additionally gives the impression to different spots and small kids that human life has a lesser worth. One of the most widely recognized raised points in euthanasia is that of religion.

Christianity, if not all, religions have extremely severe perspectives on taking lives, particularly your own. It is seen as one of the definitive sins against God. There are gigantic costs engaged with the consideration of critically ill patients or patients that are in a state of insensibility. These significant assets are spared an incredible sum if an individual decides to take an interest in the doctor-helped suicide. This could incite medical clinics and specialists to start utilizing euthanasia as a method for cutting costs, and the contention suggests that such patients should be kept from ending their lives through any potential methods.

Toward a Balanced Perspective on Euthanasia

All those who opt for a willful death should have the right to do so and choose as they please. So as to guarantee that the procedure is actualized in a moral way, the patient should initially have no uncertainty about their choice and should finish a living will to help the influenced individuals around them, explaining why they have decided to be euthanized and tolerating full responsibility for their death.

A few people demand that in the event that we enable the different types of killing to be lawful, it will override the course of typical treatment since protection suppliers will basically constrain individuals to be euthanized against their desires by denying them basic restorative treatment in a convenient way. This contention can be tended to with the execution of appropriate legitimate limitations and securities.

The individuals who don’t advocate for euthanasia every now and then represent the discussion that it would be prescribed to permit a patient in a vegetative state to die as opposed to effectively removing them from life. The question if euthanasia is morally wrong or ethically correct will always flutter around until it is made completely illegal or legal. This method implements the practice of ending one’s life peacefully and without suffering. This necessarily does not make it unethical, yet terminal illness involves much pain and suffering. Many factors depend on whether this practice is completely moral, but happiness, quality of life, and the chances of surviving all play a huge factor.

In those situations where the size of enduring altogether exceeds the size of joy meets all requirements for killing. Subsequently, euthanasia is moral, depending on your outlook on life and your stand on social justice. Today and consistently, there are people, families, and experts thinking about these issues; we can proceed with the discussion; however, ideally, our general public will land at a mindful and sensible trade-off to help these populations.

References:

1. Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., Cohen, J., & Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D. (2016). Attitudes and Practices of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. JAMA, 316(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.8499
2. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation. Cambridge University Press.
3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
4. McQuoid-Mason, D. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: international law and practice. Springer.
5. Ogden, J. A., & Louw, D. (2018). Euthanasia: Towards an Ethical Social Practice. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 74(3), a5073. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i3.5073
6. Juth, N., Lynöe, N., & Lynöe, N. (2011). Physicians’ attitudes towards euthanasia: A systematic review of the literature. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 27(3), 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31820227fb

In the world today, there are trials in life that really cross our ethical boundaries. One of the example is medical challenges. Euthanasia is also called mercy killing for someone who is terminally ill or for somebody who is suffering from a disease that is painful and cannot be cured. This act of killing is in a painless way in order for the person to die with diignity. Euthanatos is a Greek word of the term euthanasia which means good and easy death. Euthanasia has different types such as active (introducing something to cause death), passive (withholding treatment or supportive measures), voluntary (consent) , involuntary (consent from guardian) and physician assisted (where physician’s prescribe the medicine and patient or the third party administers the medication to cause death). In 2019. euthanasia is currently legalized in countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Colombia. Most of the time euthanasia is completed on the grounds that the individual requests for it for the reasons like feeling of severe despondency and dejection, fear of putting heavy burdens to others, or loss of self-worth. However, there are situations where an individual can’t make such a call. In this time of crisis, some people agree on it as they see it as mercy killing and some people don’t as they see it as a murder.

Euthanasia is not always given to the very sick patients and it is a serious topic in today’s society as it goes against the standard of customary medicine. There are people who have the incapacity to do the decision-making in this time of crisis. Often factors for euthanasia application are the ones who have been in unfortunate incident or diseases that causes stroke or heart attack that results them into a vegetative state. This means they can’t speak up for themselves and they can’t make an individual decisions. Mostly the authorized person who will decide in behalf of them is the family member. But considering that the person is in permanent vegetative state, would it be ethical to just decide in behalf of him/her?

Self-determination or the nature of autonomy. A person has the right to control his/her life, has the ability to make choices without asking anyone’s. Let me clearly state my opinion to these questions. First, Is it mercy when you take the existence of an individual who wants to stop the suffering? We can apply the role of beneficence in this aspect as it means a practice of mercy and kindness with a strong implication of doing good to others in consideration of ethical motives. It is a matter of personal choice when we talk about the right to terminate our lives. In life, we have the ability to choose everything that we want and when it comes to ending our life whether it is because we are terminally ill or we have incurable diseases, we should have that freedom to decide on what options should we take about what’s gonna happen to us. Lots of people who are into pro life actually as they want to live longer as they can, but personally I believe that you have the right to wish to end your suffering when you have severe medical condition and that you can’t bear the pain anymore. According to an article in the Independent newspaper in March 2002, that; “In cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions.” This means that the respect for this right protects euthanasia from being abuse or use it in a wrong way or in the wrong purpose as by ending one’s life without a consent would fail to respect someone’s rights. And if this decision will not endanger anybody then there’s no reason to decline the person’s wish. People who agree in voluntary euthanasia believe that it is morally agreeable as it has no violation for human rights. Second, Is it a murder when you inject something to cause the death of a hopeless patient? Many people believe that when there is an option of relieving the pain without dealing with the cause of the condition, euthanasia is not necessary. There are available drugs and other types of life support available for the terminally ill patient as the purpose of medicine is to preserve the health of the patient, restore it when it is lost, or remove the ailment orf a person to give a better quality of life. It has been stated by the World Health Organisation or WHO that “palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a normal process; it neither hastens nor postpones death; it provides relief from pain and suffering; it integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of the patient.” Most people agree that you should live your remaining days in life here in this world less emotionally and physically distress as possible. When palliative care is productive then it will allow the patient and the rest of the families the likelihood to spend their quality time together. Here we can apply the role of non-maleficence which means to cause no harm to others. This principle acts as a threshold for treatment or it is the unchanging factor in clinical practice. Let me give an example, if you see somebody in an emergency situation, you have the duty to provide medical attention or to seek one to help and to prevent any harm to that person. So when the patient is terminally ill, it is the duty of the healthcare professionals to do the best as they can to prolong the life and to treat the patient with dignity and respect.

But what is really the church’s stance on this issue? According to Catholic News Agency on vatican document about euthanasia, “No one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly, nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” It is obviously that the religious community has taken a negative stance on the issue of euthanasia. Its application to those who are terminally ill ban by the majority of Christian religions. Also we can read in the bible that taking another human being’s life is an absolute sin and a heinous act of crime. However, there are people who believe that God doesn’t want us to suffer, doesn’t like us to be in unbearable pain. So for them it is also a sin to keep going even if you don’t have purpose anymore in the society. It’s better to end the suffering that continue to give burden to others. In general, people is scared of death, they will avoid death as much as possible because they love to live, they love being alive but to those very sick individuals, it will just make them feel worst and unappreciate life in the long run. There are also instances that if the patient’s wish to end one’s life, it may have undesirable effect to the rest of the family.

In conclusion, it is apparent that on both sides there are firm arguments about euthanasia. For me, if the person request to end own’s life since he/she is suffering and holds nothing but the unbearable pain then it must be accepted and respected. Although I am a pro life and that we should be grateful for life but seeing your family member in pain will also give me some guilt on keeping him/her alive as that person really wants to rest and not be able to feel the pain and discomfort anymore. Yes, Marcus Tullius Cicero once said that “While there’s life, there’s hope.” But sometimes, you became hopeless in a way that you can’t find your life purpose anymore in this world.

Etherisation, mercy killing or assisted suicide is exactly what it sounds like, suicide with assistance or killing to end suffering. But before you jump to a conclusion and claim that it is a cruel act let me tell you that it isn’t without its purposes. Assisted suicide is a choice that people can make when they have been in an accident or are badly sick and can’t live life like they use to. It is a simple procedure involving nothing but a needle filled with a serum that puts you to a painless end or simply being withheld from medication in order to not prolong a painful end. So is mercy killing really a mercy or is it just murdering with a different name? Should it be allowed in Australia? Is people getting this procedure a common occurrence? I’ll be discussing these three questions with you.

So is the act really humane or is it just sheer brutality? Well different people would all have a different opinion on this matter but the majority are probably still against it considering it is still not a league act. But before I get too far into this I want to tell you that people will commonly mistake euthanasian and assisted suicide as that same thing, but it’s not, yes they have the same end result but the procedure is different. Assisted suicide is when you are provided with the correct medical means necessary to see the act through but you have to do it yourself, etherisation is when a physician will step in and take an active role in the procedure. So with that out of the way well continue with the rest. So here are some facts about how the procedure is done. It can be carried out either by a physician or by yourself, it includes nothing but the serum necessary. There are a number of reasons that people will consider mercy killing, some reasons are chronic sickness or pain, mental illnesses and physical incapability, the patient feels no pain and it is entirely their choice to make, but if you still don’t think that this act should be legal hen let me ask you something, if someone you loved was in suffering from a chronic pain or illness, then wouldn’t you want them to find a quick end so they could find their peace or would you wish them to suffer through until they met their end in just a prolonged way? So this is really just making the inevitable happen in a quick and painless way and they get to choose when they go.

These procedures are allowed in certain parts of the world under certain circumstances. Some of these places include Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, certain parts of the United States, Victoria in Australia and others. So don’t you think that this procedure should be allowed in all of Australia? Don’t you think that people who are in suffering should at least have a say in how and when they go? The rates of people who under took a mercy killing last year was in between 0.3% and 4.6% out of all reported deaths. So this isn’t exactly common but it defiantly isn’t unheard of.

So once again don’t you think that is should be made a league act.

Imagine, you have just been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. The doctor tells you that you have less than six months to live and that your time remaining will be extremely painful and you will likely encounter severe seizures and horrific bouts of daily vomiting in the months before your body finally surrenders to death. Would you wonder if there was a quicker way for the living nightmare to end? Would you want the right to choose the way you leave this planet? Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are suffering from debilitating, terminal illnesses and diagnoses like this. Yet, these people are unable to be put out of their pain and misery with dignity and respect due to archaic laws that do not allow assisted suicides. Unlike patients whose illnesses aren’t as extreme and have a survival chance, the terminally ill patient has no chance of being cured. Given their death is certain and imminent, this pathway to death is truly not fair – for the individual suffering the illness as well as their family, who must endure the horror of watching their loved one suffer miserably for an unknown amount of time. Today, I would like to explore some of the main arguments that are commonly used to prevent Euthanasia from being a legal option for the terminal patient. By exposing the flaws in current arguments, it will be shown why medical Euthanasia is a humane and compassionate option and should therefore be legalised for terminally-ill patients in Australia.

The most common objection to Euthanasia is the belief that medical technology today is remarkably intelligent and has achieved feats in prolonging the lives of humans. Breathing devices, respirators and heart technology has helped to save the lives of those with failing lungs and hearts. For those who are lucky enough to have a survival chance, medical technology is truly a miracle. However, for the terminally ill patients, medical technology does not cure the patient, it simply prolongs their suffering, making it even more painful and agonising day by day. Respirators and high dosages of drugs cannot save the terminal patient from the victory of a disease or an illness. In fact, kills them quicker.

Further to the prolonging of death for the patient, the unbearable physical suffering can be the hardest thing to watch for their family. In addition to the emotional burden of watching a loved one suffer, the stress of the financial costs of medical treatments can also take a huge toll on all involved. For immediate family members, this can cause immense stress on top of the fact that their loved one is also dying. The patient also experiences the stress of knowing the financial burden that they are causing for their family. They live with the knowledge that the hospital bills will just continue to grow as they continue to suffer until they finally die.

According to Arcadia Healthcare Solutions, People who die in the hospital undergo more intense tests and procedures than those who die anywhere else. Their studies also state that 42 percent of patients died at home at a cost of about $4,760 for their last month of life, while 40 percent died in a hospital at a cost of $32,379. This is quite a hefty amount of money to be paying each month that the patient is holding on. Of course, the families of the terminally ill are not considering the bills during their final months, but once they have passed, the hospital bills pile up and may send them into financial hardship, leaving them to not only deal with the loss and the grief of their loved one but also the fact that they are in extreme debt. This impact can be devastating for families. If chronically ill patients have the choice and the right to an assisted suicide, not only will it ease their pain and suffering but it will also save their family from a long-lasting financial burden.

Yet, there is an alternative available to this prolonged physical, emotional and financial suffering. An alternative that empowers the patient and their family to determine a death that is pain-free and humane. That alternative is called ‘Euthanasia’ a medically-assisted process that releases all involved from unnecessary suffering. No matter the view you have on Euthanasia, I ask you to please put yourself in the shoes of the terminally ill for a minute. Imagine being so incredibly sick and in such an indescribable amount of pain that and that you have no choice than to wait it out as your family watch. Just heartbreaking.

Another argument often used against Euthanasia is that it is immoral for humans to ‘play God.’ Most religions disapprove of Euthanasia on this basis, some, absolutely forbid it. The Roman Catholic church, for example, is one of the most active organisations in opposing Euthanasia. Others who oppose it are people just like you and I. People who do not understand what it is like to be dying a painful death and not given the right to end their suffering early. These people should not get the right to decide whether a dying person’s wish comes true or not. Assisted suicide should be legal around the globe, no matter the religious views or any kind of opinion from any prime minister, doctor or the general public. In 2013, 75% of the Australian population agreed that assisted suicide should be legal, 9% said neutral and 16% disagreed. Yet, Victoria is the only state that legalised assisted suicide.

On the other side of the issue, however, people, like the religious communities who are completely against assisted suicide believe that those suffering should not have the right to assisted suicide. An opposing argument from Michael H. White from Los Angeles who practice law says “Controversy about this stems from fear that vulnerable populations may be coerced into premature death, on the one hand, and from fear that dying and helpless patients may be either abandoned or subjected to unwanted and unnecessary medical treatments, on the other hand”. Tracy E. Miller, a health-care attorney and has written widely about bioethical issues, believes that “Legalising assisted suicide would be profoundly dangerous. The risks would extend to all who are ill but would be greatest for patients who lack access to high-quality medical care. The gravest danger is not that physicians or family members will be abusive”. But how putting someone at peace from their suffering ‘profoundly dangerous’?

Students, teachers and members of our society, I ask you: does it not bother you that we – human beings, supposedly filled with emotion compassion with families of our own are willing to stand around and let other people have a say in the decision of society’s own actions? Let these terminally ill people suffer for months on end all because of outdated laws put in place purely because of medical and religious beliefs. Assisted suicide is currently legalised in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, Switzerland, and parts of the United States and one state in Australia? It is a shocking truth to realise that this equates to only 8 countries worldwide. 8 out of 195 countries. This equates to hundreds of thousands of families worldwide who in heartache, watching their loved one die in a tremendous amount of pain. The path to the legalisation of assisted suicide starts here. I urge you to reflect honestly on what I’ve said today and consider the changes we can all lobby for to help create change for the lives of so many trapped in the waiting game of a terminal illness. Imagine if it was you or your loved one. Wouldn’t you want the right to choose a humane death? We as a society have the power to change lives. You along with the other billions of people around the globe deserve the right to choose how you close the book on a life well-lived.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous discussions over euthanasia have been going since ages among wellbeing experts. Euthanasia word originates from Greek and also widely known as willful extermination which means great passing or makes a finish of life effortless, shorting life in remarkable condition. Person’s perspective toward euthanasia is relied upon numerous conditions, for example, religious background, race, and so on. Euthanasia can be delegated active and passive. Active methods acquainting something with cause demise and passive methods retaining treatment or strong measures with the aim to cause passing. What’s more, the killing can be voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. In Voluntary willful extermination, suicide is pursued on-demand with doctor help. They don’t pursue the case including involuntary willful extermination, where the patient is able and not concurred for treatment. Non-voluntary willful extermination ordinarily known as kindness slaughtering is mostly think about when an individual is rationally impaired or has not to limit Wherever all through the world, a few kinds of willful extermination are performed from the old period. Right when killing comes in the type of authorization, it can make questionable exchange all around. Because of discussion over the euthanasia, sanctioning of killing is still under the procedure in specific nations, yet in some western nations it is legitimized. Despite the fact that euthanasia isn’t just about sick patients, it likewise incorporates their loved ones, therapeutic administrations specialists and the systems.

Right to die or right to live

Many theories have been proposed to explain the importance of the moral and ethical standards of human life in the health care system. As indicated by the moral standards of autonomy, the persistent decision is principal in proceeding or withholding his/her treatment and the caretaker who is lawfully answerable for the terminally ill person and thinks about its desires, may have the moral and lawful right to demand for termination of any treatment or mediations. As per research of Mehdola & L.Block (2016) in western countries, withdrawal of treatment is generally acknowledged for those suffering from incurable diseases as per patients’ wishes. Devroey et al (2013) also revealed the result of a study that was conducted on a person’s interest among candidate for taking opinion about patient’s rights in Belgium. In this study, 88% of participants agreed with voluntary death to end their life in case of incurable disease. Point of this research was to investigate awareness and opinion of a person’s right and the issues faced with her/ his fulfilment among the Belgian population. Euthanasia is generally characterized as ‘circumstances when on request of the patient, specialists purposely persuade the death of a somebody who is enduring from unbearable pain in some countries where euthanasia is legal. According to a review of research of Lo (2012) it is not acknowledgeable if a person is suffering from the terminally ill condition from a long time and there is no life to live than suffering. In such cases, continuity of medical treatment can increase suffering without any hope of life to live. Under firmly recommended conditions, deliberate killing or Assisted suicide is lawful in certain nations, for example, Netherland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Mexico, the United States and Switzerland. On other hand, Person’s life sacred and needs is to be protected at any price paying little heed to torment and enduring. A few social orders emphatically restrict willful extermination because of their religious and sociocultural standards. As per Hamarsheh and Mrayyan (2018) for instance, in Muslim nations, they accept that wilful extermination is in opposition to Islamic religion and its worth. Comparative perspectives exist in nations like Japan, Poland, Italy and Germany where life is considered as holly. Sinha, Sarkhel and Basu, (2012) here is presenting how intentionally killing can structure automatic or non-deliberate wilful extermination that is against the desire of the individual. We have to have clear strategies and severe laws because particular intentional killing structure automatic or non-deliberate wilful extermination. The vast majority of the nations on the planet are not in favour of legitimizing wilful extermination. In numerous nations helping the individual to end their life and is considered as murder. A large proportion of the countries in the world are against legalizing euthanasia. In many countries assisting the person to commit suicide will result in imprisonment and is considered as murder. For example, in Jordan, euthanasia is illegal even with the consent from the patient and family it is considered as a crime against human life. Robert Orfali (2011) communicated his stress over willful extermination that it tends to be utilized on poor people, handicapped and other defenceless individuals to chop down the medicinal costs. There is no standard to survey the psychological limit of the death’s door patient to cause agree and they can be compelled to go in this direction. Fragile older or terminally sick people are relying upon the individuals around them especially relative and wellbeing experts. In this circumstance, it is difficult to survey the basic leadership limit of the individual.

Euthanasia has become a controversial issue since ages and still, it contributes to the good, and civilised death through preventing unbearable pain and suffering. Theory of the Caputo (2015) revealed that It can be achieved by either intentionally giving some medication called active euthanasia or passively allowing to die patient by withholding treatment or taking away something they need to survive. Research of Lam, (2017) reflects on Peter Fitzsimons’ opinion about respect to willful extermination. Peter states that I will like to pass away peacefully at the age of 80 and he does not want to wait for unbearable pain. Peter says it is a privilege of a person to self-administering his own life that’s by his choice ought not to be viewed as wish or want. In opposing side review of Schafer (2013) deliberate willful extermination or helped suicide is illicit in Canada, both exhorting or helping the individual to carry out suicide is a criminal act in Canada. Both the places of parliament dismissed the bill, basically because of the dread about authorizing killing in a roundabout way will hurt powerless patients, handicapped and delicate older and it is difficult to shield them from misuse. Also, on the off chance that specialists are helping their patient for killing, at that point, they were abusing their expert duty as a wellbeing expert to advance the strength of the evil individual and diminish the mischief. This infringement of obligation imperils the trust connection among specialist and patient. The patient will lose their expectation towards human services experts.

Victoria is the main state to authorization killing in Australia. The Act comes in accomplishment from mid-2019. The Act comes in real life from mid-2019. But regions every one of the states was moving towards authorizing willful extermination. One more contextual investigation was reflected by Evans (2018) in which Kristine Klugman is a solid supporter of willful extermination and battles for regions rights to legalise killing because of her own experience. Kristine Klugman was determined to have cancer disease in 2011 after coming ACT in real life. For his situation, an operation was impossible because of physical quality and her age. Her illness returned after finishing chemo treatment. She says that treatment was long and excruciating on the off chance that anything turned out badly she would have taken her life. This is the main reason that she does not want individuals to have to go that far to decide to end. ((Pereira (2012) the information gathered from 58 out of 61 progressive cases getting doctor helped suicide counsel in 2009, in that 57 out of 59 doctors helped self-destructive passing were led by master helped self-destructive hall gathering. Information’s from these cases made vulnerability in objectiveness of the appraisal and melancholy of certain patients stayed undiscovered. The creator of the report expresses that, Oregon wellbeing office authoritatively communicated the dread in regards to decrease of solicitation for the mental appraisal for those getting treatment under death with pride Act. ))

Conclusion

In light of these discoveries and problems, supporters of euthanasia contend for the move made in killing is sympathetic and kind. Regarding the privileges of the patient to take choice with respect to his/her consideration and end their misery and agony. Then again, adversaries contend for the strict and profound parts of human life. In their view, the patient doesn’t reserve the privilege to take his own life. Life is to live in any condition and passing have a place with God. While this vital specialists and medical caretakers consistently in their workplace look circumstance. Here, medical attendants have a vital job and they can go about as a patient’s promoter and give the most ideal consideration to the patient dependent on moral standards. Legitimizing killing will have a significant effect on the general public. Along these lines, the arrangement creators or the legislature must think about each part of the nation’s populace before authorizing killing. Likewise, we need clear gauges and strategies with exacting laws to particular deliberate killing from euthanasia. The best thing is to elevate palliative consideration administrations to give most ideal administrations to the terminally ill patients. These administrations ought to be founded on their individual needs. Tuning in to the patients, tending to their needs and giving consideration might be useful. Hence, Advanced Care Directives are utilized in certain clinics and matured consideration offices. It is one method for regarding persistent decision in connection to their future.

References

1. AI Hamarsheh, M.K., & Mrayyan, M. (2018). Cancer patient who elect euthanasia as an option: An argumentative essay. Middle East Journal of Cancer, 9(3), 253-258.
2. Caputo, A. (2015). Trends of psychology-related research on euthanasia: A qualitative software-based thematic analysis of journal abstracts. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20(7), 858-869.
3. Devroey, D., Deneyer, M., Scheys, E., Van De Vijver, E., & Van den Block, L. (2013). The perception of patients’ rights among Belgian population. Central European Journal of Public Health, 21(2), 109-117.
4. Evans, J. (2018). Territories can make laws on abortion and medicinal cannabis, but not euthanasia. Here’s why. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-15/why-territories-cant-legislate-on-euthanasia-or-assisted-dying/10114164
5. Hollis, S. (2016). Entering into the debate…July edition of the ANMJ about Voluntary Euthanasia (VE) debate. Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal, 24(4), 46.
6. Lam, J. (2017). Euthanasia-The Right to die well and beautifully? A theological plea. Australian Catholic Record, 94(2), 167-179.
7. Leppert et al. (2013). A comparison of attitudes toward euthanasia among medical students at two polish universities. Journal of Cancer Education, 28(2), 384-391.
8. Mendola, A., & L.Block, G. (2016). ‘Isn’t that euthanasia?’. Hasting Center Report, 46(2), 9-11.
9. Orfali, R. (2011). Death with dignity: the case for legalizing physician-assisted dying and euthanasia. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.federation.edu.au
10. Pereira, J. (2012). Casting stones and casting aspersions: let’s not lose sight of the main issues in the euthanasia debate. Current Oncology,19(3), 139-142.
11. Schafer, A. (2013). Physician assisted suicide: The great Canadian euthanasia debate. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(5-6), 522-531.
12. Sinha, V., Sarkhel, S., & Basu, S. (2012). Euthanasia: An Indian perspective. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(2), 177. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.99537
13. Sharp, S. (2018). The bible and attitudes towards voluntary euthanasia. Death Studies, 14 March 2018.
14. Stolz et al. (2017). Attitudes towards assisted suicide and euthanasia among care-dependent older adults (50+) in Austria: the role of sociodemographic, religiosity, physical illness, psychological distress, and social isolation. BMC Medical Ethic, 18, 1-13.
15. Theofanidis, D., & Mecek, F. (2016). Euthanasia: A Healthcare Debate from a Greek-Turkish Perspective. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 9(1), 321-329.
16. Woods, M., & Bickley Asher, J. (2015). Nurses and the euthanasia debate: reflections from New Zealand. International Nursing Review, 62(1), 13-20.

Human beings, individually and collectively, deal with pain and suffering. The tough nature of distress aligns with the practice of euthanasia, which plays a role to relieve persistent suffering. In contemporary healthcare, euthanasia continues to be associated with strong moral beliefs, through which the practice is met with subjectivism. It is relative to one’s rights, practical approach, philosophy, and religious beliefs; pushing the notion that everyone has their own set of ethical principles. The virtue of the subject is evaluated through different cultures and demographics, forming a consensus on active voluntary euthanasia. The various positions that it produces are often seen as morally permissible and impermissible.

Frances Kamm, an American philosopher, refers to Euthanasia as the act of ‘killing or bringing about someone’s death due to a final act by some other person with the intention that the person’s death is in the best interest of the person who will die.” Active voluntary euthanasia attributes to this practice, being conducted with consent from patients. The practice forms questions of morality and sparks a debate across complex dynamic aspects of society – concerning some of the most profound feelings in humans. Those in favour of euthanasia hold a moral belief that civilized society should allow people to die with dignity and that it should be their personal decision. On the other end of the spectrum, disputants believe that life has been given to us, and choosing to end it would be immoral; pushing the perception of abusing power if it is in hand. Mutually, these diverging perspectives introduce the concept of moral relativism. The book Malaises of Modernity by Charles Taylor introduces moral relativism as the notion that morality depends on context, in which one’s contextual beliefs may be different from another’s. The subject of Euthanasia offers valid cases to an understanding of morality, thus widening the ethical divide.

In modern society, a populous of ethical moralists believe that active voluntary euthanasia should be legal. This involves the conceding of a patient that wishes to follow the practice – by giving them the freedom of choice and right to die. The moral basis for this argument is self-determination. This means that the decision concerning life should be determined by the individual who is concerned and that it be in everyone’s best interests. Emmanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, understands the notion of these rules being universalizable if they can consistently be willed for everyone to obey. In context to euthanasia, those in favour would argue that giving people the right to a good death shall be acceptable as a universal principle. A relativist would also agree with this through the lens of situationism. This take would depict that there is no universal standard to people and that in every situation the moral standard would vary to reflect principles. The moral dilemma decreases when the individual chooses to follow a path that they deem to be beneficial for them.

Euthanasia is frequently recognised as beneficial in terms of autonomy. Grasping that autonomy is imperative for life, facing a loss of autonomy would be rooted in prolonged suffering. To exercise this through the lens of euthanasia, it would be integral for individuals to take responsibility for their lives. When one is grieving and requests medical assistance, their choice to support their well being holds greater value and is a provision to the moral foundation for requests of voluntary euthanasia. This is further defined by Charles Taylor, through the expression that practical reason is essential to life. It is engrained in utilitarianism, which percieves euthanasia to be morally acceptable as it decreases the misery of everyone that is involved. Thus, the notion that alleviating the suffering is utilitarian in the moral permissibility of the subject.

Opposing the support for euthanasia, the request for premature ending of life has built an argument against the role of the practice – through the perception that it is immoral. This thought lies in medical ethics, evident in the undermining of a doctor-patient relationship. If euthanasia were to be legal, it would violate the trust between a patient and doctor, and corrupt the role of a healer. The Hippocratic oath, which is taken by all doctors emphasizes this saying, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.’ Going against this testimony would be morally impermissible for physicians, and against the basis of the profession. Essentially, the principle that doctors hold against intentional killing does not line with the practice of euthanasia.

The objections with active voluntary euthanasia lie in religion, through the prevalence of life to have intrinsic value. The sanctity of life ethic argues that the killing of humans is against the morality of life and its value and that human life is a basic good in opposition to instrumental good. Thus, to deliberately kill a life is thought to be dismissed. Religious people would argue that this goes against their morals and the will of God. This is evident in various religions, including Christianity. Pope John Paul II manifested that, ‘It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls.’

The nature that encompasses demise should be subdued through the basis of morality in religion. This proposes the underlying ethos that human life is valuable, and should be preserved.

Through a philosophical lens, these arguments can be discredited. According to Aristotle, ethics must be formed through a dialogical lens. Thus, it cannot be assumed by those that are not participating in the same experience. Ethical knowledge requires participation in these practices, making it clear that it is through this perspective that practitioners often deal with moral issues such as active voluntary euthanasia. An absolutist too would use various rules to determine whether it is morally wrong or right, including the judgement of moral issues to be reliant on a fixed truth.

As a whole, Euthanasia is a contentious issue, in which the heart of the controversy lies at the morality of the practice; and involves a variety of factors to interact in each case. The evaluation of moral permissibility of euthanasia is relative to each individual and reliant on judgements based on the act rather than the outcomes. Thus, the acceptability of active euthanasia is subjective to one’s intrinsic values, beliefs and cultural demographics.

The word euthanasia (greek term meaning good death) or mercy killing is the act of painless killing of suffering patients to relieve them from the pain they are experiencing. Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something necessary to keep the person alive. A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally or has a disease that will lead to death within weeks or months

Countries that allows euthanasia are: Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Columbia, Canada, USA not all states, Australia. People have divided into two groups: some say euthanasia is the matter of choice, even when it comes to choosing death. The other group claims that we shouldn’t give the doctors the power of offering death to people who may not even realize the decision they make. What I think is that taking life from a person who wants to end up sufferings is mercy.

Now let’s take a look at the reasons on why euthanasia should be legalized.

Firstly it relieves suffering, if a terminal patient faces a painful, slow death surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Euthanasia make it possible to die with dignity and in control of the situation. Terminally ill means terminally ill, in other words the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will die eventually of how many intervention it takes to make his och her life longer. If we look at the issue from an economic perspective the time and money could be used to help others who have a chance to get better.

Secondly all human beings have the right to decide their career path, who they spend their life with, where they live and whether to bear children or not. So what is the problem in allowing terminally ill patients to decide for themselves where and how to die? It is not logical that we can choose in all those other decisions if we can not first choose to live or die.

Moreover all human beings have a legal right to decide when and how to die, as demonstrated by the fact that suicide is legal in Sweden since 1856. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives.

Moving on to one of the benefits of euthanasia, organ donation. People who would like to end their suffering early can also donate their organs. Doctors will have a chance to examine the vital organs to see if they can be donated. At later stages of many terminal illnesses, organs are severely weakened and, in some cases, failing. Which means that it may not be possible to use them at that point.

If we allow abortion, we must allow euthanasia. How is it logical that a woman can choose to have her fetus killed but not herself. The euthanasia patient is already dying and requests death in his own interest. A doctor can kill a healthy fetus in the interest of a third person but can’t kill a terminally ill patient in his own interest.

However, abortion is not just about killing one human (the fetus) to help another (the mother), it can be difficult to solve some problems of pregnancy without abortion but it still does not make sense.

In contrast to this is those who claims that doctors mustn’t be empowered to offer death to people because a patient doctor relationship does not remain as trustworthy as it should be. och läkarna har lovat att rädda att patienter men But DNR, Do Not Resuscitate order is legal in all hospitals. A DNR order on a patient’s file means that a doctor is not required to resuscitate a patient if their heart stops and it is designed to prevent unnecessary suffering. A DNR order can be regarded as a form of passive euthanasia so why is it legal to have DNR but not euthanasia.

To summarize, Euthanasia should only be approved in hopeless cases after several experienced doctors have examined the case and found that the person has a disease that will lead to death within weeks or months. The patient should also receive all psychological support to understand what they are asking for and also know that they can stop the whole process at any time if they regret it.

In the end, death is a tangible option for those who are suffering and do not see life as an option any longer. Many see it as inhumane and religiously wrong, but we must also see it from the eyes of the patient.