Who has the Control over the Use of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Module Who has the Control over the Use of Euthanasia? Euthanasia, in the past few years, is a topic that has raised controversyin huge proportions. Some view it as death with dignity while others view it as murder of second degree. The legislature and the judiciary are the most vocal arms of the federal government that have had a fair share of this battle (Smartt 100). In some states, there have been legislations that have been passed while others have been rejected overwhelmingly by the majority of the people. Such are the issues that surround this medical way of alleviating pain which has been used since time immemorial (Appel 610). As people continue to worry about active or passive euthanasia, medical practitioners, on the other hand, have a hard time deciding which method to use as they are morally obligated to ensure that people regain their health. However, if the medication process is not relevant to them, should they not end it to avoid suffering? If so, who should make the call? No particular answer has been found as the most endearing and most considerate though some argue that both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia should be offered (Appel 615). The only difference is how long the patient takes before they succumb to their ailment and who is available to make the decision. Others argue that these provisions are wrong from a personal dignity point of view. A clear consensus, though hard to come by for the past two centuries, should be sought and clarification on the issue of control given to ease pain and reduce needless suffering amongst fatally ill patients. The current law states that mercy killing or euthanasia is tantamount to homicide. The judicial system defines homicide as any type of intervention that is taken with an intention expressly aimed at ending life, whether it is to retrieve intractable disease or not. From this, one can learn that anything done to ease the pain of a dying person, whether they consent or not is unlawful and shall be treated as criminal offence (Smartt 105; Tulloch 64). From these stands taken by the law and the judicial system, euthanasia cannot be used at all unless legislation is passed to permit it. These events have shaped the way doctors react to cries by patients in anguish as they cannot risk being jailed for homicide or any other unlawful conduct (Dowbiggin 23). This is not fair at all. If suicide is a personal decision, why do they not accept euthanasia as one too? They should weigh this and allow people to have less suffering and since they have very short time to live, should be allowed to end their suffering in advance. There is no documented benefit of people suffering for six months and then die whereas they could have reduced the costs that will be transferred to the relatives (Annas 1239). This shows that the dispute of who is expected to control their death cannot be left to the doctors, the individual in question and neither can the state offer protection against suffering. However, it is crucial to understand that the word was coined as a means of encouraging painless and happy death that would be left to the physician. It was their responsibility to alleviate such pain. However, the area of bioethics has done considerable research on this area, and this has further complicated issues. There is a need, therefore, for the solution of this issue to be forthcoming. People suffering from chronic diseases and are in their final stages of these ailments should be aided to pass on peacefully. Though religious people argue that God is the only one with the power over death, it is imperative to understand that no religion spreads pain and suffering as a way of entering eternity. Even the suffering of Christ on the cross may not be compared to an invalid waiting for death for six months just because they cannot control their own death (Dowbiggin 27). It will ease their pain and allow the physicians to be responsible for other people. The relatives will also have a chance to rest and use the resources on other deserving issues that will help to improve their lives than use them on a project that has already proven to be unproductive. The judicial system will also be expected to place the legislations that will help in determining which cases deserve and which can be given a second chance (Tulloch 67). Changes will be expected in the health centers since the physicians will be obligated by law to try all they can to make sure that everyone is given an equal chance in life. The debate will also ease with those against and those pro-euthanasia having a chance to ensure checks and balances to avoid abuse of the regulations and the rules put in place (Annas 1243). Those who are outside the field of medicine will one time or the other either be affected or be victims of this decision. The elderly in their midst or even when they get any form of chronic disease, this will come in handy. If the decision is made and clarified for all involved parties to understand their position and their roles, then everyone will be taken into consideration, not only present but also in the future. In conclusion, it is crucial to have all the facts right. Euthanasia has been practiced since the days of Socrates and Plato in the early 347 BC. During these times, the alleviation was crude and inhumane. The methods used included suffocation and being laid on the cold ground to die. However, the mid-1800s provided morphine and the invention of chloroform, though not formally endorsed as forms of hastening death, could be used and were humane. The mid-1930s saw the hastening of the death of King George V as he was suffering from fatal cardio-respiratory failure. In the early millennia, Pope John Paul II was also aided to die peacefully. Amongst the physicians, at least 64% of those surveyed said they would try euthanasia if it hastened death and prevented inevitable suffering. These are just statistics that show how people have reacted in different times. What makes it difficult to make a relatively fair decision based on the current advancement in both science and technology to help ease the pain of those with fatal ailments? This control needs be awarded to the physicians on demand of the individuals and/or family with the judicial system offering oversight on the issue. Works Cited Annas, G. "Death by Prescription. The Oregon Initiative". The New England Journal of Medicine 331 (18) (2009): 1239–1245. Print. Appel, J. M. "Rethinking the Euthanasia Controversy: A Duty to Kill? A Duty to Die? ". Bulletin of the History of Medicine 78 (3) (2005): 610–34. Print. Dowbiggin, Ian. A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print. Smartt, Ursula. "Euthanasia and the Law". Criminal Law & Justice Weekly 173 (7) (2009): 100- 115. Print. Tulloch, Gail. Euthanasia, Choice and Death. George Square, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005. Print. Read More