Pros and Cons of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia Euthanasia refers to the act of ending the life of terminally ill patients by lethal injection or denying the patients basic necessities, like food or water. Euthanasia eliminates patient suffering and wastage of scarce medical resources on health care. Euthanasia may hinder the dusty of doctors to give palliative care to their patients. Introduction Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or incurable disease by either lethal injection or suspension of the treatment. Euthanasia is intentional killing by the omission or act of a dependent individual for his alleged benefit. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient requests to be killed while non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when the killed patient did not consent to the killing. Assisted suicide can also be classified as euthanasia when an individual provides information and guides the patient in committing suicide. Euthanasia by action occurs when individual actions like providing lethal injection leads to the patient’s death while Euthanasia by omission occurs when the care giver withholds important care such as provision of food, water and medication thus leading to the death of the patient (Tulloch, 1999 p 34). However, for an act or omission to qualify as euthanasia, the said act or omission should be intended to cause death to the terminally ill patient. The issue of euthanasia has attracted intensive debate with proponents asserting that euthanasia should be legalized since it eliminates patient’s sufferings. The opponents of euthanasia assert that euthanasia is a rejection of the value of human life (Tulloch, 1999 p 35). Arguments for euthanasia Proponents of euthanasia assert that allowing people to die with dignity and avoiding the terminal illness is good in eliminating human suffering. The Beneficence argument for euthanasia claims that terminally ill patients should be prevented from dying painfully and slowly by allowing euthanasia (Buse, 2008 p 7). Continued extraordinary care will stress the immediate loved ones since it just prolongs the death of the terminally ill patient. They assert that many terminally illness patients should have the right to choose when to die and avoid the terminal suffering. According to the argument of mercy, allowing the terminally ill patients to continue suffering is inhumane and cruel. The life of terminally ill patients should be ended through lethal injection in order to avoid suffering and pain associated with the extraordinary medication (Buse, 2008 p 8). Proponents also assert that euthanasia promotes the overall interests of every individual concerned and does not violate any one’s right. Active euthanasia is morally acceptable according to the libertarian arguments. According to the proponents, euthanasia can be included in the public policy and effectively controlled by the government laws. For voluntary euthanasia, the terminally ill patients should be accorded their choice to die since they have a fundamental right of self-determination (Tulloch, 1999 p 34). According to proponents of euthanasia, human beings are independent biological elements and have the right to choose when to die. They assert that death is one of the important events in human life and right to life is only good if the individual is guaranteed a minimum quality of life and value of life. If the dying process is unpleasant due to terminal illness, the patient should exercise his right to death by shortening the death process. Patients have obligations to their immediate family members and doctors and the right not to be killed is sufficient to protect the patient from non-voluntary euthanasia. Death is a private matter and if no harm committed to other people, then they are no reasons of government interference in euthanasia process (Morris, 2007 p 175). Another argument for euthanasia is that is aids in the fair distribution of the scarce health resources. Limited health resources should not be wasted on people with no chances of being cured thus these people should prefer to choose euthanasia. The available health facilities and personnel should be utilized in the provision of medical care to patients who have better chances of recovery from diseases (Morris, 2007 p 174). According to John Stuart Mill, power should only be exercised over individuals in a civilized democracy in order to prevent harm to other members of the society. Coercion should never be exercised over people against their will unless it is for the good of the individual. Democratic societies make laws that prohibit murder but are not supposed to make laws on marriage and religion. The same argument is applicable to euthanasia since terminally ill patients who choose voluntary euthanasia will not be harming any individual in the society. The burden of proof on the undesirability of individual behaviour rests on the State and mot the individual. According to basic principles of democracy, voluntary euthanasia should be allowed (Keown, 2002 p 64). Countries like Netherlands and Switzerland have legalized euthanasia like the Death with Dignity Act of 1994. People with terminal illness can request for assisted suicide in order to eliminate suffering and pain. The millions of elderly individuals suffering from a terminal illness could avoid pain and prolonged death if voluntary euthanasia was legalized. Lethal injections would enable the families of the terminally ill patients to avoid financial burden and stress of caring for the terminally ill patient with no chances of survival (Cundiff, 1992 p 63). Arguments against euthanasia The opponents argue that the right to decide individual’s death belongs only to God. Accordingly, they argue that even if the individual had the right to determine his death, such right would negatively affect the society. The immediate family members and friends would experience feelings of guilty and anger after euthanasia. The opponents assert that euthanasia violates the right of individuals to be protected from harm while passive euthanasia violates the patient’s right to medical benefits. Euthanasia violates the basic duty of doctors to the patients since they are supposed to preserve the lives of the patients (Cundiff, 1992 p 61). Euthanasia weakens the respect and dignity of human life. Euthanasia could easily lead to a public policy of ending the life of terminally ill patients who have good chances of recovery. Human life is sacred and it should not be intentionally terminated by any other individual. Terminally illness patients should not be denied artificial air, water, food and medication since it forms part of the medication (Torr, 2000 p 208). Opponents of the libertarian argument assert that euthanasia may be good for the society welfare but not morally acceptable. Lethal injections on the patient will harm the immediate family members since they are deprived the benefits either economic or social benefits that could accrue to them if the patient recovered fro the terminal illness. Opponents of euthanasia assert that it undermines medical treatment excellence. According to Dutch experience, doctors are less interested in terminally ill patients in administering palliative care. It will become easier for doctors to administer lethal injections to such patients than continue with expensive and time consuming palliative care. According to opponents, the terminally ill patients may not make sound judgments regarding voluntary euthanasia due to fear of pain and suffering. Once palliative care is administered at the symptoms and pain is relieved, the patients begin to value their own life thus euthanasia should not be legalized (Jablow, 1995 p 107). Conclusion Euthanasia should be allowed since it eliminates the patient’s suffering and reduces the medical expenses of providing health care to individuals with no chances of recovery. Individuals have the right to death thus voluntary euthanasia should be allowed. Euthanasia can easily be regulated by the government since the physicians have a duty to ensure the wellness of the patients. Voluntary euthanasia will not lead to the slippery slope to non-voluntary euthanasia since doctors have the duty to preserve the life of patients. According to Libertarian argument, euthanasia should be allowed for the best interest of all the individuals involved since it is not a violation of individual rights. Euthanasia is cost effective since it eliminates misuse of scarce public resources on incurable diseases. The universality principle is correct since if any person would prefer euthanasia then it should be applicable to all other people. References Buse, A. (2008). Euthanasia-An overview about forms, differences and difficulties. Munchen. Verlag. Cundiff, D. (1992). Euthanasia is not the answer: a hospice physician’s view. New Jersey. Humana Press. Edge, R. & Groves, J. (2005). Ethics of health care: a guide for clinical practice. New York. Thomson Delmar Learning. Jablow, L. (1995). Arguments against euthanasia. Georgia. Georgia State University. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: an argument against legislation. New York. Cambridge University Press. Morris, J. (2007). Medicine, health care and ethics: catholic voices. London. CUA press. Torr, J. (2000). Euthanasia: opposing view points. London. Greenhaven Press. Tulloch, G. (1999). Euthanasia/Choice and death. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press. Read More