Euthanasia is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as “the action of killing an individual for reasons considered to be merciful”. Here, killing is described as the physical action where one individual actively kills another. Euthanasia is tolerated in the medical field under certain circumstances when a patient is suffering extremely and death is inevitable. A considerable size of society is in favor of Euthanasia mostly because they feel that we as free individuals, have the right to decide for ourselves whether or not it is our right to determine when to end someone’s life. The stronger and more widely held opinion is against Euthanasia primarily because society feels that it is God’s task to determine when one of his creation’s time has come, and we as human beings are in no position to behave as God and end someone’s life. Many critics of the medical profession contend that too often doctors play God on operating tables and in recovery rooms. They argue that no doctor should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies. Who knows the right answer? Euthanasia seems to be contradictory to the doctor’s code of ethics, which is to preserve life. However, there comes a point where dying peacefully becomes important. It relieves people from all their pain and suffering and allows the terminally ill to finally be put to rest. If they do not want to live anymore, then that is their choice to live or die. Their suffering is beyond the understanding of others. Only that person knows what kind of pain they are really feelings. If we do not allow the dying patients to decide whether or not to live or die, we are depriving them of the freedom of choice and have prolongs their suffering.
An advanced terminal illness causes unbearable suffering to an individual. This suffering is the most common reason to seek an early end. If a person is subject to pain that won’t stop as a result of a disease that can’t be cured, must he or she suffer tat pain as long as possible when there are gentle ways of putting an end to life? If Euthanasia were legalized, it should be admitted that there might be some abuses. There is no absolute guarantee against that. However, a social practice should not be forbidden simply because it might sometimes be abused The crucial issue is whether the evil of the abuses would be so great as to outweigh the benefit of the practice. In the case of Euthanasia, the question is whether the abuses, or the consequences generally, would be so numerous as to outweigh the advantages of legalization. Second, a grave physical handicap exists that is so restricting that the individual cannot, even after due care and counseling, tolerate such a limited lifestyle. This handicap is a fairly rare reason for suicide, most impaired people cope remarkably well with their affliction, but there are some who would, at a certain point, rather die.
Legalizing the “right to die” would bring about some good consequences. We spend more than a billion dollars a day for health care while our teachers are underpaid, and our industrial plants are rusty. This should not continue. We have money to give smokers heart transplants, but no money to retool our steel mills. We train more doctors and lawyers than we need, but fewer teachers. Individuals have the right to decide about their own lives and deaths. What more basic right is there than to decide if you’re going to live? There is none. A person under a death sentence who’s being kept alive, through so called heroic measures certainly has a fundamental right to say, “Enough is enough. The treatment’s worse than the disease. Leave me alone. Let me die!” Ironically, those who deny the terminally ill this right to do so out of a sense of high morality. Today our medical hardware is so sophisticated that the period of suffering can be extended beyond the limit of human endurance.
On the other hand, what’s the point of allowing someone a few more months or weeks of so called life, when death is inevitable? There’s no point. In fact, it’s downright inhumane. When someone under such conditions asks to be allowed to die, it’s far more humane to honor that request than to deny it. People have a right to die with dignity. Nobody wants to end up plugged into machines and wired to tubes. People are entitled to dignity, in life and in death. Just as we respect people’s right to live with dignity, so we must respect their right to die with dignity. In the case of the terminally ill, that means people have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment when it’s obvious to them that all the treatment is doing is destroying their pride, and reducing them to a helpless, dependent individual.
However, Euthanasia might push people to give up to soon. In order for Euthanasia to work properly, guidelines must be set out and clearly written. The person must be a mature adult. The exact age will depend on the individual, but the person should not be a minor. Secondly, the person must have clearly made a considered decision. An individual has the ability now to indicate this with a living will and can also, in today’s more open and tolerant society, freely discuss the option of Euthanasia with health-care professionals, family, friends, lawyers, etc. Most importantly, the Euthanasia must not be carried out at the first knowledge of a life-threatening illness. Reasonable medical help must have been sought to cure or at least to slow down the terminal disease. Life is precious, you only live once, and it is worth the fight. It is when the fight is clearly hopeless and the agony, physical and mental, is so unbearable that a final exit is an option. The treating physician must have been informed, asked to be involved, and his or her response been taken into account. The physician’s response will vary depending on the circumstances, of course, but ten should advise their patients that a rational suicide is not a crime. It’s best to inform the doctor, and hear out his or her response.
The doctor should decide whether the ailment is curable and if it is not, he or she should decide whether the patient will live productively for months or even years to come. If the ailment is not immediately fatal, will it cause pain and suffering for the rest of patient’s life? How old is the patient? Will he or she live much longer anyway? All these factors should come into play when deciding whether a patient should be euthanized. It is up to the patient’s doctor to decide whether the patient’s ailment is indeed curable. The patient should be presented with the facts, The doctor should tell the patient exactly how it is and not project some false hope that the patient may recover. With this information, the patient can make an informed decision and feel that it is the best one. No one can decide who should die and who should not. Everyone is in complete control of his or her own life, therefore, should be free to decide. Having considered the arguments in favor of Euthanasia, the person should also contemplate the arguments against it.
As with any controversial topic, there are strong points backing up each side. The improvement in medical care is a direct result of attempts to minimize suffering. If that suffering had been extinguished by ending the patients who bore it, then we may never have known the advances in the control of pain, nausea, breathlessness and other terminal symptoms that the last twenty years have seen. Some diseases that we were terminal a few decades ago are now routinely cured by newly developed treatments. Earlier acceptance of Euthanasia might well have undercut the urgency of the research efforts which led to the discovery of those treatments. Also, patients who feel they have the option of death, might abandon all hope of living. Many patients already feel guilty for imposing burdens on those who care fore them, even when the families are happy to bear the burden of responsibility. To provide an opportunity for the release of that guilt in a request for Euthanasia is to risk putting to death a great many patients who do not wish to die. Euthanasia is not take at random. There must be a handful of approvals and compromises before taking it, so it is not inhuman for someone who turns off the machine. Besides, incurable disease cause suffering to the patients too much, so they prefer death to survival. Yet, no matter how serious Euthanasia is taken, mistakes can happen as well. It is still unethical for someone to kill him or herself or send others to the road of death. Being the parents of the patients, they also do not want to see their sons or daughters die. Thus, it is disrespect for the patients to decide to end their lives. Euthanasia will always be an argument with perspectives from both sides. There will always be people with terminal illnesses and with pain and suffering.
Those who support Euthanasia enjoy life and love living, and their respect for the purity of life is as strong as anybody’s. Yet they are willing, if their dying is distressing to them, to give up a few weeks or a few days at the very end and leave under their own control. Ultimately, the decision lies with the beholder. It is the right of a person to make his or her won choice, with some limitations. It is the doctor’s responsibility to provide the patient with an accurate prognosis so that the patient may make an educated decision. A doctor should not be allowed to play God and decide who should live and who should die. In fact, even the patient should not be allowed to, but it is the patient’s life and he or she has to live it. So, it is only logical to allow the patient, and no one else, to decide.
Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free
Property of EssaySwap.com
