Euthanasia. A Short Overview of Supporting and Opposing Arguments

Ensayo , 2020 , 8 Páginas , Calificación: 3.3

Ética

This essay tries to shed light on some of the most important arguments supporting, as well as opposing euthanasia.

Euthanasia as a method of terminating individuals’ life is not a universally accepted idea. Several countries legally accept euthanasia. Countries such as Poland, South Africa, Belgium, and Luxembourg legally and actively practice euthanasia. Laws of these countries allow doctors and other health professionals to deliberately end a person's life by administering an overdose of certain drugs that cause death (Sharp.). Euthanasia is a highly debated moral issue with considerations such as legal, religious, clinical and political that play important roles in decision-making. Proponents of euthanasia base their arguments on the idea that individuals have the right to choice and self-determination (Scherer). They also argue that there are other methods of ending an individual's life that is widely accepted, an argument that is referred to as pragmatic. The opponents of euthanasia argue that people might ask for euthanasia because of pain instead of a sane mind. Euthanasia may also be used to eliminate people for wrong reasons and that disease can find a cure anytime.

These arguments have been discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

Contents

Abstract

Arguments Supporting Euthanasia
Poor Quality of Life
Right to Self Determination and Respect for Individuals Decisions
The Public View of Suicide
Pragmatic Argument for Euthanasia

Arguments against Euthanasia
Religious Argument
The Slippery Slope Argument
Medical Ethics Argument
Alternative Argument

Bibliography

Abstract

Euthanasia is a word derived from Greek words (EU Thanatos) which means good death. This is a practice that was widely accepted in Ancient Greece. The Greeks employed hemlock as a method of quickening an individual’s death in Kea islands. This method was also employed by Socrates who was a proponent of euthanasia as a deliberate technique of speeding up a person’s death in the city of Athens (Buiting et al.). In the modern world, euthanasia refers to decisions of family members, relatives, and doctors to deliberately end a person's life to bring to an end the suffering of that person (Young). Such decisions are made when a person is suffering from a disease that is painful and impossible to cure, or the person is in a coma that cannot be reversed.

Euthanasia as a method of terminating individuals’ life is not a universally accepted idea. Several countries legally accept euthanasia. Countries such as Poland, South Africa, Belgium, and Luxemburg legally and actively practice euthanasia. Laws of these countries allow doctors and other health professionals to deliberately end a person's life by administering an overdose of certain drugs that cause death (Sharp.). Euthanasia is a highly debated moral issue with considerations such as legal, religious, clinical and political that play important roles in decision making. Proponents of euthanasia base their arguments on the idea that individuals have the right to choice and self-determination (Scherer). They also argue that there are other methods of ending an individual's life that is widely accepted, an argument that is referred to as pragmatic. The opponents of euthanasia argue that people might ask for euthanasia because of pain instead of a sane mind. Euthanasia may also be used to eliminate people for wrong reasons and that disease can find a cure anytime. These arguments have been discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

Arguments Supporting Euthanasia

Poor Quality of Life

Proponents of euthanasia argue that some living standards may be worse than if an individual was to die. The pain and suffering that individuals experience caused by a terminal disease may make life unbearable. When an individual is experiencing this kind of life euthanasia comes in handy and is seen as an act of humanity and a way to die in a dignified manner (Young). The doctor or the medical practitioner acts according to the principle of beneficence to relieve the suffering of an individual suffering from a terminal illness (Amarasekara, and Bagaric). Doctors who act in the best interest of the patient are said to have applied the principle of beneficence. The suffering of a dying patient is far much ahead of the pain (Young). Dying patients experience a lack of mobility, increased helplessness, physical discomforts such as the inability to eat or talk increased dependence on others and the fear of death. Patients become weak, lose dignity and at this point life becomes meaningless and death becomes the preferred option.

Right to Self Determination and Respect for Individuals Decisions

Proponents of euthanasia argue that Individuals have a right to choose their destiny which includes the process of death. There should be respect for how individuals chose to live their lives and how they choose to die. They (proponents) further argue that individuals have the right to avoid the life that is unbearable, full of pain and suffering. Some of the proponents argue that there exists the right to commit suicide and therefore individuals should be set free to decide on how to exercise this right (Amarasekara, and Bagaric). There is a fundamental right for individuals to commit suicide which constitutes human dignity when life has lost meaning and is unbearable. The principle of beneficence is centered on an individual's right to self-determination. Doctors base their actions on assisting patients to die on this principle of self-determination. A patient may request a doctor to initiate his or her death in cases where palliative care is adequate but impossible to end the suffering.

The Public View of Suicide

With the increasing cases of suicides around the world, research into why people commit suicide found out that unbearable life situations make it necessary for individuals to commit suicide. This has made the public understand that suicide is a normal thing thus stigmatization has reduced to a large extent. Suicide has been accepted as a legal act in most of the jurisdictions around the world. Mental illnesses such as depression and bipolar disorders have been attributed to most suicide cases (Young). On the other hand, people who are terminally ill may shorten the process of death to end their suffering. Terminally ill individuals cannot commit suicide because they are weak. It is for this reason that they may ask the intervention of a medical practitioner to terminate their life. Able-bodied individuals have the option while terminally ill individuals require an agent and that is the reason they may experience discrimination.

Pragmatic Argument for Euthanasia

Proponents of euthanasia argue that there are many other practices used in end-of-life care that are essentially subsets of euthanasia but just different in name. for example in cases where individuals request not to be treated when they stop breathing or their heart stops beating, a practice commonly known as "Do Not Attempt Resuscitation" (DNAR) order. This is a form of passive euthanasia because an individual is denied an essential treatment that could save his or her life. Also, palliative sedation is another practice that has a lot of controversy around it. This is carried out when an individual is experiencing unbearable suffering that has no treatment that can save his or her life and is given sedative medicines that cause her to sleep. This method is normally used to treat patients who are dying or are suffering from burns. Even though DNAR and palliative sedation are not practiced by most doctors and palliative caregivers euthanasia is being performed to some extent. Society should, therefore, legalize and monitor the application of euthanasia.

Arguments against Euthanasia

Despite the many arguments that are used in defense for euthanasia, there are several arguments used by individuals who are against it. Some of the arguments include arguments from the religious point of view, the slippery slope argument, the medical ethics argument, and the alternative argument.

Religious Argument

Individuals who are against euthanasia on a religious basis are of the idea that life is a gift from God and that only Him has the power to decide when an individual's life ends. They argue that God created human beings in a sacred way and for this reason; human life is sacred by default. Individuals don’t decide how and when they are born therefore they should not be given the freedom to choose how and when to die (Young). Legalizing euthanasia could lead to its abuse in that individuals might be euthanized by their enemies when they are not ready to die. Christians argue that God has the final decision when it comes to human life. God decides when human life start and ends, therefore, engaging in acts of euthanasia is sinful and is against Him. This is a common argument among Christians, Jews, and Muslims (Scherer). Other beliefs such as Buddhism and Hinduism have a complex point of view on euthanasia. Scholars from the two systems of beliefs argue that euthanasia is tolerable in exceptional circumstances. This point of view is, however, does not have a universal acceptance among Buddhists and Hindus

The Slippery Slope Argument

Individuals are against euthanasia based on the slippery slope idea argue that once the government through its healthcare system, starts to kill its people it sets a dangerous example by crossing a line that should never have been crossed. Government laws are subject to change through amendments (Young). It is of great concern that once euthanasia has been accepted in the society, it will progressively change from voluntary euthanasia to non- voluntary and finally to involuntary euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia may lead to negative consequences that may not be seen at the time of law enactment (Scherer). Such negative consequences may include pressure for disabled people to request for euthanasia to reduce their family's burden. Patients may also request for euthanasia because of the doctors' diagnosis that they have a terminal condition which might be wrong. Researchers may also become complacent and discouraged to research more into palliative treatment and cure for terminal illness.

Medical Ethics Argument

A doctor has the sole responsibility of preserving human life. The medical ethics argument is of the view that legalizing euthanasia is a violation of the ethical code of conduct. By conducting euthanasia a doctor would have abandoned his or her responsibility to preserve human life (Young). Euthanasia also damages the relationship that exists between a patient and his or her doctor. There is also the argument that legalizing euthanasia will make doctors dependent on the process of causing death which then will become a routine process (Scherer). Doctors may also lose compassion when attending to terminally ill patients, the disabled and the elderly. For these reasons, individuals who have intricate health needs may lose trust in their doctors' efforts to cure an illness believing that their doctor prefers to kill them rather than taking responsibility for a demanding case.

[...]

• Calificación: 3.3
• Autor: Rodgers Agoi (Autor)
• Año de publicación: 2020
• Páginas: 8
• No. de catálogo: V584627
• ISBN (Ebook): 9783346189325
• Idioma: Inglés
• Etiqueta: arguments, euthanasia, opposing, overview, short, supporting