Euthanasia: Voluntary Relieving of Suffering Through Professional Assistance - Essay Sample

Introduction

Euthanasia is the process that involves taking active steps to end someone's life, aiming to stop their suffering. Only professionals are allowed to conduct euthanasia but it must be done under a voluntary basis. Euthanasia is different from assisted suicide because assisted suicide involves supporting someone to commit suicide (Davis, 2019). The exercise is undertaken by individuals themselves. It is illegal to assist someone to take their lives. However, euthanasia involves the observance of legal procedures to end the life of someone. However, there are debates regarding the practices since some oppose it while others support it. Euthanasia should be continued in society because relives caregivers' burdens, encourages organ transplant as well as eliminating individual suffering.

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

Save 25%

The first implication of euthanasia is that it would be helpful to families and caregivers of the suffering patients; thereby managing distress and depression. Although caregivers do not provide consent to voluntary euthanasia, they can be involved in the process in the event the patient cannot provide free consent because of the condition. Besides reducing distress among the caregivers, it has a direct impact on the health of other individuals, such as family members involved in providing care services. They will not undergo the stress of taking care of the patient all through the lives; hence, they will not develop health conditions, such as depression (Hudson, 2017). The second implication is that the entire process should involve professionals, such as doctors and legal experts. The process involves various stakeholders since there can be a legal implication if the healthcare professionals did not follow the right procedure. In some cases, doctors request close family members, such as sons and daughters or parents to switch off the life support machines for their loved ones. However, the medical personnel must prove that the patient will not survive in the long-run; hence, the need to stop the suffering by ending the life of the patient. Therefore, there must be a legal back-up to support the entire process.

Human euthanasia should be legalized because it relieves caregivers of the burden of taking care of their sick patients. It is worth noting that patients with degenerative and incurable conditions should be allowed to die so that they do not continue suffering and die in the end. Also, the process helps family members to concentrate on other aspects of life other than taking care of individuals who will eventually die and leave behind huge hospital bills (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). The burden of having a patient suffering from incurable diseases and conditions cut across various sectors, such as emotional, physical, financial and mental stability of the caregivers and family members. The suffering could cause health problems among the members; hence, the need to end the life of the individual to avoid generosity of the problem. Furthermore, euthanasia supports organ transplants because it encourages individuals to donate their critical organs to needy people in society. The process will help many patients that require critical organs for survival (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). Finally, individuals have the right to refuse care, especially the treatment that seeks to prolong life. For example, blood cancer patients can refuse treatment and provide free consent to end life. However, healthcare professionals and caregivers should take into account critical ethical considerations before deciding to end the life of the individual.

Nurses and medical professionals should have a say in the euthanasia process because they understand the medical condition of the patient and guide family members and the patient effectively before the individual gives free consent. The advantage is that the nurses and medical professionals would help the patient and the family members make rational decisions. For example, the professionals can advise the family members if the patient has a chance of surviving; hence, the need to avoid euthanasia (Barone & Unguru, 2017). Secondly, the medical personnel would advise the best euthanasia method based on the prevailing condition of the patient. However, the problem of having nurses and the medical team to have a say is that they may make a decision contrary to family members. For example, some medical professionals believe that they can do anything to save a life; hence, they would keep trying to treat the patient even if they are suffering from incurable diseases and this will lead to prolonged suffering. Nevertheless, they should be part of the process and should give proper advice and let the family and the patient decide.

Conclusion

Euthanasia is practiced in some communities while others oppose the practice. Although the practice requires free consent, there must be medical justification that the individual does not have a chance of recovering. Benefits of the practice include relieving caregivers the pain of taking care of their patients, encourages organ transplants and individuals have the right to refuse treatment and medication to prolong life. However, it eliminates the emphasis on care and allowing the patient to survive. Finally, nurses and medical professionals should be involved in the process, but the patient and family members decide.

References

Barone, S., & Unguru, Y. (2017). Medicine and coety: Should euthanasia be considered latrogenic? AMA Journal of Ethics, 19(8), 802-814.

Davis, N. (2019). Euthanasia and assisted dying rates are soaring. But where are they legal? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/15/euthanasia-and-assisted-dying-rates-are-soaring-but-where-are-they-legal

Hudson, P. (2017). The hidden implications of assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Morning Sydney Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-hidden-implications-of-assisted-suicide-and-euthanasia-20171006-gyvrou.html

Math., S., & Chaturvedi, S. (2012). Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 136(6), 899-902.