Euthanasia is Inherently Wrong - Essay Example

Euthanasia is Inherently Wrong Introduction It is becoming increasingly apparent that the concept of ‘euthanasia’ is gradually winning the approval of different cultures and societies. Skeptics may believe that this is due to the growing propensity to belittle the value of human life, but others think this is not the main reason. They claim that it is much more probable to be the consequence of blunt compassion and kindness. Widely publicized, heartbreaking events draw out intense feelings of sympathy. Many people believe that in these instances a person and his/her loved ones would be better off if s/he were dead hence making it right to take the life of that individual.1 However, this essay argues that this belief is wrong. This essay tries to prove that euthanasia is immoral. It is naturally immoral, but is also not right to interpret euthanasia from the perspectives of self-centeredness and of convenience. Before laying down arguments against such belief, it would be important to provide an accurate definition of ‘euthanasia’. A basic feature of euthanasia is that it entails killing a person or taking one’s own life. Moreover, the individual who is killed should be a person who is confirmed to be tormented by some injury or illness from which healing cannot realistically be anticipated. Ultimately, the decision should be purposeful and planned. Hence, euthanasia is deliberately killing a seemingly hopeless individual. It is essential to be definite about the purposeful and planned feature of euthanasia; if a hopeless individual is prescribed an incorrect medicine unintentionally and led to his/her death, this not euthanasia but unjust killing.2 The taking of a human life cannot be the outcome of a mishap. Moreover, if the individual is prescribed a medicine that is thought to be required to improve his/her condition or cure his/her illness and the individual dies consequently, then this is neither euthanasia nor unjust killing. The purpose was to cure the person, not take his/her life. Likewise, when the condition of an individual is in a sense reasonably hopeless, being unable to administer the treatments or medical procedures is not euthanasia.3 The death of a person should be an outcome of his/her illness or injuries and not of the absence of treatments. The inability to carry on with the treatment after it has been found out that the ill person has almost no chance of deriving benefit from such treatment has been called ‘passive euthanasia’.4 This term is confusing and erroneous. In this kind of situation, the individual is neither killed nor his/her death planned by the refusal to administer further treatment. The purpose may be to free the individual from further and intolerable suffering, to free him/her from the humiliations of desperate treatments, and to dispel increased emotional and financial troubles on his/her family or loved ones. When a person buys a local book it is so that s/he can read it for leisure, not to help raise the economy. This could be an unintentional outcome of his/her decision to buy a book, but it is not the purpose of his/her decision. Hence it is with the inability to carry on with the medication of a dying patient; hence, as explained by Jackson (2005), his/her unplanned death or also referred to as ‘passive euthanasia’ is not in any way euthanasia. All human beings have an innate tendency to survive. Their responses, instincts and impulses give them the ability to wrestle with enemies, escape from predators, and move away from the path of fast moving vehicles. In their everyday existence they use vigilance and take extra care needed to safeguard their selves. Their biological makeup and physical feature are likewise designed for survival. When they are wounded, their blood vessels close up, their blood clots, and proteins are released to initiate the healing process. When they are attacked by bacteria, their bodies release antibodies to exterminate the invaders. Euthanasia simply goes against this natural aim of survival. It is exactly violating nature since all natural mechanisms are inclined toward the final stage of physical survival.5 Euthanasia disrupts such delicate processes in a manner that, specifically, injury and illness could not. It is reasonable but not crucial to bring into play established religion in this case. A person, as custodian of his/her own body, violates God’s will when s/he commits suicide. S/he also breaks the commandment to uphold the sanctity of life and never to end it without fair and undeniable reason.6 However, because this argument will convince merely those who are eager to recognize that religion holds naked truths, this essay does not use this line of reasoning. It is sufficient to believe that human behavioral patterns and bodily structure make life’s continuation a natural objective. Logically, therefore, it may be concluded that euthanasia violates human nature. Moreover, euthanasia violates human morality. Such morality emanates from pursuing human goals. When one of these aims is continuation of life, and decisions are made that eradicate that aim, then natural human morality is wounded. Different from lower animals, human beings are aware due to their natural form and goals. Euthanasia entails taking action as though this twofold nature—tendency toward survival and consciousness of this as a goal—is absent. Hence, euthanasia goes against human nature and pushes people to view their selves or other people as less human. The aforementioned arguments are quite adequate to demonstrate that euthanasia is naturally immoral. However, there are explanations for regarding it wrong when interpreted by criteria apart from rationality or practicality. Since death is permanent and ultimate, euthanasia holds the likelihood that people will go against their own purposes or goals if they approve it or perform it. Modern medicine has notable criteria of quality and a strong record of success, but it does not have flawless and absolute knowledge. An erroneous finding is not impossible, and thus a wrong prescription. As a result, people may think that they are dying of an illness when, actually, they may not be. They may believe that they are hopeless when, actually, there is much hope for them. In these situations, if euthanasia were allowed, they would lose their lives without reason. Death is absolute and the possibility of mistake is quite substantial to accept the concept and practice of euthanasia. Furthermore, there is consistently the likelihood that an untried treatment or solution or a thus far experimental method will save people in need of them. People should allow such alternative, but euthanasia prohibits it. Moreover, natural relapse does take place in numerous instances. For no obvious cause, a person only becomes well when people surrounding him/her, such as his/her doctors, expected him/her to die. Euthanasia would simply enable their prognosis and dispel any chances of ‘miraculous’ healing that often take place.7 Last but not least, having knowledge that they can take their lives whenever they want or request someone to kill them could force them to quit easily. The desire to survive is powerful in all people, but it can be crippled by misery and pain and despair. If during a terrible moment a person allows him/herself to be killed, s/he never has an opportunity to think again. Recuperation from a grave disease entails that people try to achieve it, and anything that cripple their resolve by proposing that there is a painless and fast solution is absolutely contrary to their own goal. Furthermore, they may be forced toward euthanasia due to their sympathy for other people. If they view their illness and misery as a monetary and emotional trouble on their loved ones, they may believe that to take their lives is to make the lives of those around them more comfortable and easier. The likelihood of euthanasia may prevent people from staying alive when they could. Physicians and nurses are, primarily, fully dedicated to saving lives. It is virtually a personal disappointment for them if they are unable to save a life. Euthanasia could significantly change this. It may have a debasing effect so that whatever happens that is serious physicians and nurses may not give their best to save a patient. They may come to a decision that the patient would plainly be ‘better off dead’8 and execute the actions needed to bring that about. This approach may then influence their relationships with patients less gravely sick. The outcome would be a general weakening in health care quality. Ultimately, euthanasia as a policy is highly problematic. An individual obviously terribly sick may be permitted to commit suicide. Then s/he may be allowed to ask other people to take his/her life in case s/he is unable to do something. Thus the decision of others becomes the determining force. Already in this case euthanasia is not intentional and subjective, for other people are doing something in aid of the patient as they think necessary. This could encourage them to do something in aid of other patients who have not given them the permission to use their discretion. Therefore, according to Keown (2002, 16), it is almost a shift from voluntary euthanasia to directed euthanasia given to a person who has provided no permission, to involuntary euthanasia performed as component of a social policy. In recent times numerous scholars have asserted that we label as ‘mental disorder’ those behavioral patterns that people denounce. This thus grants people permission to incarcerate those who manifest the behavioral patterns. The classification of the ‘hopelessly sick’ opens the likelihood of even more severe mistreatment.9 Entrenched in a social policy, euthanasia would authorize the members of society to eradicate all people who could be classified as gravely ‘ill’. The risks of euthanasia are numerous to even try implementing it. Conclusions This essay hopefully was successful in proving why the compassion that encourages people to accept euthanasia is messed up. Euthanasia is innately immoral for it goes against human nature and morality. However, even those who denounce this should be convinced that the possible social and individual risks innate in euthanasia are adequate to prohibit people’s recognition of it either as a social policy and individual action. Pain and misery are definitely awful things, and people have a definite obligation to help and care for people in need and to alleviate their misery when necessary. However, misery and pain are also a normal force of life with importance for the person and for other people that should not be disregarded. People could rightfully give other people and their selves the permission for an easy death. Nevertheless, euthanasia is not only an easy death. It is an immoral and ungodly death. Euthanasia is simply, killing. Works Cited Cavan, Seamus & Shean Dolan. Euthanasia: The Debate Over the Right to Die. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. Print. Jackson, Linda. Euthanasia. New York: Raintree, 2005. Print. Keown, John. Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print. Read More