Essay Example on Euthanasia Debate: Pro's & Con's of Intentional Ending of Life

The term euthanasia refers to the intentional ending of someone's life out of compassion. It can either be a painless or painful process, depending on the option used. Certain factors are, however, put into consideration before the procedure gets conducted, which include the patient's personal beliefs, mental and physical health, and the local laws. Euthanasia debate has always ignited mixed reactions and opinions for centuries over the legality and ethics related to the practice. With many countries today passing statutes in support of euthanasia, it is a relief for patients with no chance of recovery to have a dignified death. Even though euthanasia saves the patient from unnecessary suffering, it should only get applied when there is no other alternative.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Euthanasia has always attracted diverse views from both the legal and moral points of view. The controversy about the voluntary termination of life revolves around the issue of individual liberty and the values of life. Life is sacred and ought to get respected. No one has the right to oppose nature or choose when to terminate their life at will since life was awarded to them freely as a blessing. We must safeguard and protect it to the very end. However, human beings tend to continuously challenge nature and interfering with the natural causes of events. For instance, doctors should do everything in their power to save lives. The advancement in the medical field today is meant to help solve some of the health challenges we face today and improve the quality of life of patients. Controversy, however, arises in the case where the doctor has to terminate a life.

The distinction between passive and active euthanasia presents a conventional doctrine whereby the former is permitted sometimes while the latter faces a lot of opposition. Human beings have always contradicted concerning what is morally right or wrong, as everyone tends to choose what is in their favor. In my perspective, I don't think there is a difference between withholding treatment or taking a chronically ill patient off life support system and any other direct action taken purposefully to kill the patient. In both scenarios, the aim is to terminate the life of the individual. It is hypocritical to praise the efforts made to prolong life or give a quality life by treating infections but criticize the efforts made to ensure a quality death. However, the prohibition of active euthanasia ensures life is respected and protected, while passive euthanasia provides the opportunity for death to occur naturally.

Everyone should have the right to their autonomy; however, the necessary regulatory tools need to get considered before euthanasia gets conducted. The patient or the one making the decision should be of sound mind and conscious of the decision they are making without being coerced. Euthanasia request is supposed to be voluntary. Even though it seems like a choice between life and death, we are all prone to die, and we have to face it at some point in our lives. Choosing to die now rather than later should not get perceived as an abuse to the gift of life. The choice gets based on personal decisions, and the view one has on oneself or life. Either way, no one deserves to get subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering when the likelihood of them dying at some point is inevitable.

As the utilitarianism theory states, the action gets justified as either right or wrong, depending on the results. Many people perceive intentionally causing death as immoral. But is it not worse watching someone suffer and waste away instead of allowing them to die by withholding treatment or removing life support? Having a loved one suffer from pain not only brings agony to the patient but also the family, and performing euthanasia saves both the patient and their family from the physical and emotional torture. Besides, the deontological ethical framework argues that when judging the morality of an action, the focus should be on whether it is right or wrong concerning set rules other than the consequences it brings forth.

Life is a gift bestowed upon us by God. He is also the one with the right to take it away if He so wishes. However, He gave us the power to make choices and the knowledge to better our lives. In my perspective, the knowledge and wisdom God gave us to make medications to fight illnesses should also get put into use when determining when it's time to stop trying and allow the patient to rest. Everything is God-given, so our lives belong to Him.

Even though our lives belong to us, our actions do not only affect us but our family members also. Therefore it is imperative to inform them when making decisions. In instances when there are conflicting ideas, the family should incorporate the care based perspective, as pointed out in Gilligan's theory. No matter how difficult it is to let a loved one go, we should always try to put ourselves in their situation and reason with them. For the right judgment to get achieved there must be a compromise. In the case of euthanasia, the love we have for our loved ones and the desire to cease their suffering should precede our selfish agenda to want them to be with us for some time longer at the expense of their misery.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Even though euthanasia saves the patient from unnecessary suffering, it should only get applied when there is no other alternative. Despite the conflicting moral and legal views, everyone has a right over their anatomy, especially when faced with chronic illness and endless suffering. However, life should get respected, and before a decision gets made to end a life, a proper analysis should get conducted and focus put on patient autonomy when evaluating moral permissibility.