Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
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.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.