Modern Medicine: Improved Lifespans and Euthanasia Debate - Essay Sample

Introduction

The technology advancement in the medical sector has currently improved the duration of an individual take in the healthcare facilities and the life of a person in general (Care.org.uk, 2018). People are ageing, and this is in accord with the modern medicine which has prolonged the lifespan of an individual with a motive outcome that more patients will die of the chronic disorders in the current population more than the past. It is clear that in the last decades, euthanasia has been under controversial discussion in the healthcare sector. Euthanasia is termed as the ending of the life of a person to relieve suffering, or it can mercy killing. It is believed to be a terrible act which always goes against the moral principle, religious and the right of a person to live. Due to this argument, we dwell and justify that euthanasia should be highly banned as it permits and erode on one own respect for our own lives. Besides all of these facts, euthanasia goes against any moral principles and violates the international code of medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath. Therefore, to justify for this, we focus on the three choices which confirm the ban.

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

Save 25%

First, euthanasia destroys patient trust in the medical profession. We all believe that doctors are people who we turn to when we are sick and in pain. They are also the people that we trust and look for guidance and advice on any aspect related to our health. Due to this, we regard them as being of objective since they save our lives. For example, if one has some illness, we only seek doctor's trust and attention since they are the one who went through extensive training to ensure that they provide us with safe and high-quality healthcare. It is objective that doctors have the mandate to take care of their patients and not to put their patients out of existence. Then, if we legalize euthanasia we give the patents a hard time to trust those who are in the medical field.it also makes the patient worried and especially when they go to the hospital with a doctor who always thinks about whether or not to make them alive. It is indeed that euthanasia destroys that trust which exists between the patient and the physician (Jatti & Kumar, 2010).

Second, euthanasia undermines medical research though it is one of the driving force in any medical advances and has the desire to develop treatments for the face of fatal illness. The eager to alleviate it has been under consideration due to its unmanageable symptoms. Medical research is essential if the medicine is to advance further, and when we focus on curing the patient. Also, any increasing acceptance of prenatal diagnosis and abortion for conditions like cystic fibrosis among others has been under dramatic progress as it makes it threatening due to decline in intense research. Therefore, if we legalize euthanasia, then we might expect advance in the killing, and this occurs at the expense of treatment symptom control. It will also call and encourage further euthanasia. To some extent, the doctors and other healthcare providers will be less committed to providing for palliative care, and this might risk in saving of life as they are endorsed with "legal right to kill (Hockley & Heimerl, 2013)."

Finally, it is voluntary clear that euthanasia changes public conscience. It is believed that the law is a powerful tool which is always used to improve our beliefs and conscience. When we practice, it becomes legal and widely accepted based on the eyes in the society. Most people trust the law since they believe that it is the best for the people. For example, we will look out for a case which demonstrates how the law can affect our culture and public conscience. This was done through the killing of the twin brothers Geoffrey and Essen. The two were born deaf and sought euthanasia after discovering out that they would also soon go blind from another congenital disorder. Given critics point the two brothers have unbearable pain, and the requested for the legal amendment so that they will be allowed from suffering. Due to this, they asked for permission to die. This sought the idea of euthanasia to indulge in and make impact changes.

Proponents believe that legalizing assisted euthanasia is necessary as it ensures that no one dies in the agony of pain. This practice would offer the ultimate protection to the vulnerable groups which grant suffering and peaceful deaths. In this case, there is a need to reduce the needless suffering and pain as well as the outcome of physical reassurance by the system of the dying patient. In any incurable disorder, there is a lot of pain and suffering to the patient, and this occurs in the terminal phase of the euthanasia medical argument (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). There is also believe that accumulation of healthcare cost can only be reduced by helping the patient to die. In such a case, the parents and close relatives of the patient in collaboration with the doctors for euthanasia accept to commit suicide. This is some cases that might subject the patient to allow euthanasia.

Conclusion

In conclusion, euthanasia is unjust, unethical and sometimes it is the illegal practice that needs to be made illegal. Under any medical practice, it can be misused by people where it promotes an assumption that patients have the right to die and can be dead at their request. Most of the practice considered can be used as a way of keeping the dying patient alive, and this makes then to be abducted (Hayashi & Kitamura, 2000). A terminally ill person has the right to terminate any continuing ineffective treatment, but in most cases, euthanasia endorses in which is not the better outcome. Through that significance, there is always to oppose euthanasia idea at all cost.

References

Care.org.uk. (2018). Arguments for and Against Euthanasia. Retrieved from https://www.care.org.uk/our-causes/sanctity-life/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia.

Hayashi, M., Hasui, C., Kitamura, F., Murakami, M., Takeuchi, M., Katoh, H., & Kitamura, T. (2000). Respecting autonomy in difficult medical settings: a questionnaire study in Japan. Ethics & behavior, 10(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1001_4

Hockley, J. M., Froggatt, K., & Heimerl, K. (2013). Participatory research in palliative care:

Actions and reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jatti, V. K. B., & Kumar, R. (2010). Euthanasia: Medical and Legal issues in mercy killing. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijfmt&volume=4&issue=1&article=007

Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: right to life vs right to die. The Indian journal of medical research, 136(6), 899. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/