Euthanasia is the act of committing assisted suicide following extreme suffering to end the pain and intense suffering (Wekesser, 2005, 33). Euthanasia has been a topic of discussion for many years following its legalization. Some can see this act as the mercy to the suffering patient, for example, someone suffering from terminal cancers is usually in a lot of pain during the final stages of the deceased, while some others view it as illegal and should not be practiced. Euthanasia has been left with the personal choice of treatment. The right to choose your treatment gives euthanasia a second chance for debate about its legalization. The advantage of euthanasia is cutting off the pain by ending the life of a person. There is always a reason for everybody to die a natural death. Through the religious values of death, euthanasia is regarded as a murder case. In most cases where the doctors administer morphine for a slow death, it's referred to be a murder case. Euthanasia is regarded as an illegal act since most people believe in natural death (Wekesser, 2005, 33). Euthanasia is viewed as a better alternative for terminally ill patients as a humane and less painful way to evade all the suffering, pain and eventual death due to the patients ailment.
Regarding the euthanasia dilemma, it has been regarded illegal for many reasons. Most people oppose euthanasia and the support the opinion to have euthanasia made illegal (Gibson et al., 2011, p. 56). The reasons behind this are euthanasia seems to have given doctors the power to kill (Wekesser, 2005, 33). Taking one's life is referred as murder, but in the case of euthanasia, some benefits are weighed thus opting to have it done. Doctors have gained the power to kill under the reason that the slow death will be better than continued suffering. The reasoning to have a slow death is also ethically wrong regarding the patient's rights. According to moral rights of practice, one should do what is morally right. This situation has empowered some doctors and thus for the personal interests and shortcuts, they can decide to end the life of a patient. The evidence of intentional killing in the hospital setup is quite hard to trace the following euthanasia. Some postmortem procedures have been used to investigate cases regarding intentional killing, but this is usually a family interest, not a mandatory requirement (Wekesser, 2005, 30). Another power given to doctors is about organ transplant. It is ethically wrong to kill another person even without their consent just to transplant the organ to a stable person. Due to euthanasia excuse, some doctors have taken a step ahead to kill other patients who are futile and transplant their organs like the kidney to other patients (Wekesser, 2005, 33). Additionally, doctors have gained the power to work contrary to the patients' consent. Personal rights have been neglected by giving doctors more power to rule over treatment choices. Euthanasia' therefore has been declared illegal.
Another reason why euthanasia has been declared illegal is that it has destroyed the patients' trust on medical professional. Every person who falls sick has a doctor or any other medical professional to rely upon (Wekesser, 2005, 37). People believe that medical professionals are there to save lives and regarding their objectives, to treat and do no harm, everybody outside there has the reason to rely on medication. Taking another view where a patient finds out that the doctors whom they have placed their lives can do harm regarding euthanasia have killed the trust relationships (Gibson et al., 2011, p. 22). Many people have a second thought about what the doctor might decide to do because they have found out that doctors are working for their personal interest. When euthanasia gets legalized, many patients will have a hard time to trust every doctor's procedure. Again, regarding futile cases in the hospitals, most people can decide to accuse their attending doctor if an adverse outcome occurs. According to medical ethics, empty cases should be treated with respect and honesty (Henningfeild, 2011, p.90-111). To maintain trust in doctors, euthanasia has not been legalized in many countries.
Legalizing euthanasia will make scientist to undermine medical research. From the medical research field, various drugs have been discovered to relieve pain. Others are still under research. The reason to choose euthanasia is that some people will opt to die rather than withstanding unbearable pain (Lopes, 2015, p.115). Due to beneficence regarding patients' autonomy, doctors will have no need to struggle in obtaining pain relievers and other palliative care. If views were collected concerning personal choice between living under a painful palliative care and slow induced death, the slowly induced death beliefs have a greater percentage (Henningfeild, 2011, p.90-111). Regarding medical research, they have funds for progressive research on all possible drugs to treat every condition that is in existence and other emerging medical issues. When euthanasia gets legalized, the scientist will then undermine the need to do more research to treat medical conditions that need extra palliative care (Henningfeild, 2011, p.90-111). If euthanasia will be an option then why do research? To keep the spirit of research. Therefore, euthanasia has been neglected.
According to social perspectives, legalizing euthanasia will display an unfortunate message that life is not worth living (Mooney, 2009, p.65-167). Avery life is valued despite the condition. Looking at different lives, people with disabilities still value their lives no matter what. There is a possibility that legalizing euthanasia might make life to be a useless thing. For instance, ordinary people who accidently get disabilities will have a chance for euthanasia than extended suffering after treatment. The value of life even in futile cases in the hospital setup is what promotes the healthcare providers to give palliative care. Euthanasia is against maleficence, and its legalization can bring an adverse impact to the medical intervention (Mooney, 2009, p.65-167). The drive to seek quality and more helpful health care services will be shed off regarding an option for euthanasia. Genuine compassion is one of the medical ethics which recommends that pain alleviation and minimizing suffering is all we need. Life is valuable in every circumstance.
According to law, the passed judgment is always right, but at times it affects the will and beliefs of people. Euthanasia regarding the public conscience, it is against their personal preference and principles (Henningfeild, 2011, p.111). Most people focus on what is regarded right and accepted, but when something emerges where taking sides is an option; there is the need to solve the dilemma. If the law decides to support euthanasia, then all the social principles will be of no use. Also, the basis of practicing euthanasia should not be made a second person decision to control the cultural policies of not to kill. From other disciplines, euthanasia still stands out to be a dilemma, but due to many reasons, peoples views have regarded it as an illegal act.
Another reason why euthanasia has not been legalized is that it will lead to more deaths. From the excuse of extreme pain and suffering, people will deviate from the reason and commit other murder cases. From the data concerning euthanasia cases in Netherlands, the number of death cases increased after euthanasia was declared legal (Gibson et al., 2011, pg. 1-22). In Netherlands from 2006 through 2010, the number of assisted killing in the health care increased with approximately 2077 cases (Tak, 2010). This showed that euthanasia was being taken as an option instead of continued palliative care. What remains a question is whether euthanasia will remain a personal choice or the doctors will have the right to choose. The extent to which euthanasia should be practiced is also not known. Even some minor cases may fall under euthanasia options. People getting tired of life will also opt for euthanasia thus creating room for more and more killings. The only problem with a terminal illness is that these people feel being a burden to everyone not only their families but also the physicians.
There are better ways to control extreme pain and suffering. Acceptance is the most important solution to avoid euthanasia. Many reasons why vulnerable people feel being a burden to the relatives and healthcare providers is because of the cost spent trying to maintain and sustain their life. Regarding beneficence, the doctors have the right to do what will benefit the patient (Mooney, 2009, p.65-167). Since euthanasia has been neglected, other better options have taken the position.
Legalizing euthanasia will give the vulnerable people the power to choose the slow, painless death. The sensitive individuals have the feeling that they are always a burden to the family and so they would rather die. The euthanasia option will empower these people even to commit suicide since death will be a better option for them. Also, the families with such cases may propose euthanasia be done to their relatives even against the patients' autonomy. The failure to understand the consequences of euthanasia is what creates a dilemma between assisted killing and palliative care to the vulnerable people. Euthanasia is not the best option because there are other better choices.
Following the above reasons, euthanasia has been declared illegal. From all perspectives including cultural, bioethics, and social aspects, euthanasia has no benefit to the patient or any other vulnerable person. Due to the above reasons, the countries that have legalized euthanasia have a second chance of amending the law. If euthanasia was legalized every extreme suffering and even other minor pains will call upon for slowly induced death. Natural death has been given more power since it is accepted at a personal level and community level. Also from the reasons, euthanasia has been declared a case of murder since it's an act of taking someone's life even if that person has an informed consent.
Henningfeld, Diane A. Medical Ethics. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Print.
Lopes, Giza. Dying with Dignity: A Legal Approach to Assisted Death. , 2015. Print.
Mooney, Carla. Bioethics. Detroit: Lucent Books, 2009. Print.
Tak, P.J.P. "Recent Developments on Euthanasia in the Netherlands After the Adoption of the
2001 Termination of Life on Request and Assistance in Suicide (review Procedures) Act." Fervet Opus: Liber Amicorum Anton Van Kalmthout. (2010): 193-203. Print.
Wekesser, Carol. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Print.
Gibson, T., King, B., Luckett, S., Ovens, L., Garner, S., Patel, S., Films Media Group. (2011). Euthanasia. Hamilton, NJ: Films Media Group.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Essay on the 13th (2016) Documentary: Revelation of a High Number of Black Americans in Prison
- Research Paper on the Current Status, Requirements, and the Future of Insurance Exchange
- The Article Retrospective Analysis of 140 Cases of Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma
- Essay on Opioid Epidemic in the United States
- Prenatal Education Strategies
- Case Study Example. Breast Milk Jaundice: Diagnosis and Treatment
- Privatization of Healthcare in Alberta - Article Review on Public Health