Euthanasia Is Not 'Murder' Essay Example

The contemporary society is full of pain and sufferings. Often, diseases have no cure, making the human life steal and intolerable thus giving a strong inducement to die. In light of this status quo, the issue of euthanasia is of significance. Over the years, euthanasia has faced several controversies. Politicians, scientists, and doctors debate the leeway of legitimizing euthanasia or letting people die on their own. Several nations take differing stands and either prohibit the act of euthanasia or allow it. Nevertheless, I am in support of euthanasia, and through this essay, I argue in its favor.

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

Save 25%

Active euthanasia is aggressively"killing" or ending an individual's life (for instance through lethal injections), while passive euthanasia is "letting them die" on their own (by switching off life support machines or denying medication). The variance could be that one is killing a suffering individual while in the other the person is merely allowed to take their last breath on their own. Several individuals make an ethical discrepancy between "killing" (active euthanasia) and "letting die" (passive euthanasia). They perceive that it is ethical to withhold therapy, permitting an individual to die, but it is unethical to 'kill' a patient through deliberate practice (Deepa, 2013). Some medical practitioners support this notion. They claim that it permits them to take patients through the death they desire without having to face immoral charges on the instance that they killed a patient (Devettere, 2009). Although, other people see this distinction as illogical, because terminating treatment is a deliberate act, and so is choosing to deny treatment to a patient. Switching off a life support machine needs one to instigate the act of stopping the machine from running which would still lead to the individuals' demise.

With active euthanasia, the physician performs an act of murder. Similarly, when a clinician lets a patient pass away in passive euthanasia, they complete an action with the aim of causing the patient's death. Therefore, there is no precise distinction between passive and active euthanasia, since they both hold a similar consequence; the patient's death on humanitarian grounds (Deepa, 2013). Hence the act of switching off the life-support is just like administering a lethal injection to kill the patient. But then, active euthanasia is now known as "mercy killing" for a reason, it is the most logical, moral, and humane form of treatment available to patients who lack hope in making a complete recovery since it could be cleaner and quicker, and might be less painful to the individual. In most cases, patients who have a choice of lying in bed to die a painfully slow death, or going through a painless, quick death at a chosen time, mostly prefer the latter. Thus, active euthanasia is more justified.

Living life in a hospital bed in pain is not a preferable life to most individuals, and forcing this kind of experience to anyone would be a terrible and immoral thing to do. Individuals choosing active euthanasia decide to end their lives in a quick, painless way, knowing that their life will not be the same for them and their families or significant others (Devettere, 2009). Lacking the ability to fully engaging in life without suffering makes death a better option. For this reason, active euthanasia is among the most proper treatments in contemporary society since it gives relief to all individuals suffering from a painful and incurable disease.

In instances of patients' inability to express their will, euthanasia is also justifiable. The decision ought to be made by close family members. It is often common that the individual's chances of dying outweigh their chance of surviving. Still, the family has the obligation of providing all necessary medications and paying hospital bills. It thus exhausts their psychological state and affects the family's financial state. Another justification for active euthanasia is the lack of hospital space for patients who can be cured and have high chances of survival. Even though it is not easy to acknowledge it, the issue is rampant in several nations (Deepa, 2013). Those with the desire to live lack the chance of getting proper care and treatment while those at the verge of dying fail to give their place. Hence, governments ought to enforce thoroughly made policies which could foresee all the potential barriers to the legalization of euthanasia. Euthanasia should thus be considered not as a crime of murder but a complete necessity in urgent situations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that euthanasia is a thoughtful intrusion practiced with the direct aim of ending life (killing) to release intractable suffering. It is also of importance to note that there are different forms of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is quite common in hospitals basing on the impossibility of curing an ill individual and attempting to alleviate the pain with the termination of therapy or the help of narcotics due to its ineffectiveness. While the practice of passive euthanasia is legal in health facilities, the use of active euthanasia faces constant debates. It means the dynamic injection of a substance which will eventually kill an individual. Nevertheless, euthanasia takes place secretly in every society including those that are perceived to be illegal and immoral. The central challenging aspect of euthanasia is ethical since human life is at risk, but then, active euthanasia is merely a way of easing people's suffering and is thus justifiable.

References

Deepa, P. (2013). Bio-Ethical Perspectives on Euthanasia: A Critical Study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dspace.pondiuni.edu.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/2359/T6091.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Devettere, R. J. (2009). Practical decision making in health care ethics: cases and concepts. Georgetown University Press.