Euthanasia

Free essays 0 Comments

refers to the process of inducing painless and quick death. The termis derived from the writings of Suetonius who describes EmperorAugustus to have euthanized himself to avert excruciating painplanned by his wife. The practice was widely prevalent in theAncient Greece. It received support from Socrates, Elder Seneca andthe Plato. The term spread rapidly after introduction to the world ofmedicine by Bacon Francis during the 17th century. Hisdefinition entailed a happy death that is easy and devoid of pain. is proposed for incurable and irreversible diseases suchas coma and cancer. The request comes majorly from the patients orthe family members and after signatures, doctor proceeds with theprocess. In many countries, the act is perceived unethical andtermed as illegal by the laws governing the country. Nevertheless,countries such as Belgium, Canada, Netherlands and Luxembourg havelegalized the act (Boonin and Oddie 47).

Discussion

is classified into two major groups, active and passiveeuthanasia as illustrated by the writings of Boonin and Oddie. Activeeuthanasia involves direct collaboration among the family, medicalstaff or patient to end his life. The process entails the use oflethal dosage to terminate life. The patient is relieved fromexcruciating pain within couple of hours. The family members lessenthe burden of continuous payment from in a cause which death seemsinevitable at the end. They are able to concentrate on other spheresof life. The medical staffs initiate passive euthanasia that is thecommon type of euthanasia found in U. S and other countries such asSwitzerland. It has ignited severe debate in U.S leading to onlyseveral stated advocating for euthanasia that comprised of Vermont,Oregon, California, Washington and Montana. They withdraw medicinetherapy or the daily routine previously administered to the patientswho are in critical condition. The patients with time the finallysuccumbs. is related to suicide and conditions are set inthe countries allowed (Boonin and Oddie 46). Before the processcommences, the patient must be in a condition that is irreversibleand in a comma which is the primary reason. The condition of thepatient has to challenge the medicine staff such that no possiblesolution is feasible. The measures taken to terminate life should notcause any pain and should be immediate.occurs as eitherinvoluntary, voluntary of non-voluntary. Involuntary andnon-voluntary euthanasia pose severe debate as whether to be includedin the list of euthanasia regardless of the condition the patient isundergoing. Non- voluntary is conducted without the consent of thepatients especially when the patient is under critical condition forviable communication with family members and medical staffs.Involuntary euthanasia occurs despite the will of the patients.

allows someone to embrace a dignified death devoid of painful end. Itamplifies personal autonomy as one is given right to solely determinehis/her fate during intolerable suffering. Human rights declare thatone should not be subjected to suffering.eliminates theunendurable pain with the consent of the patient. When it is banned,it forces someone under critical condition to live. This underminespeople rights to freedom from sufferings. The objection ofeuthanasia is based on ethical backgrounds. According to ethics,death should accord naturally without any assistance (Boonin andOddie 46). Breach of the conscience is subject to judgment. There hasnot been sufficient evidence of the consequences that are likely tooccur upon committing euthanasia. Despite ethical standards whichare rooted in the religion and society, there is no finaljustification concerning the issue. The possibility of negativeconsequence occurring to the perpetrators of euthanasia is blurred asno proof that exists according to Perret (Boonin and Oddie 48). According to various critics, such as Fray argues the term commonlyused by critic “Never harm” required sufficient explanation (Fray12). It should rarely mean a longevity full of suffering as perceivedby the patient experiencing great pain. In other interpretations, itmeans people need to aid patients to terminate their lives when theconditions are severe for living and death is inevitable. In earliertimes, the decisions concerning treatment were solely left to thedoctors (Boonin and Oddie 47). They judged the level of disease andmade their conclusion. However, the will of the patients havecurrently been included such as freed to terminate life with ownwill. When the suffering is adverse, killing of patients’ life isgoods to end life as advocated by Perrett.

Counterargumentsand Discussion

According to James Rachels the philosopher, euthanasia isagainst the fundamental rights of life (Boonin and Oddie 47). Itdisrupts the order of natural death and against the principle set byGod. The act should be highly avoided regardless of the politicallaws, education level, innovations, and social class. People shouldexperiences naturel death that is not facilitated. The PhilosopherFray of the University of Green state opposes his arguments.According to Bowling, under severe conditions human rights actscontrary to their meaning. The allow suffering to the ends whichcould be easily solved through euthanasia. Fray also criticized thevalidity of social and religious standards during various situation.They are unable to provide a concrete decision as whether a certainactivity such as euthanasia. They only state that any assisted deathshould not be upheld in the society without any explanation (Fray15).

In the writing of Boonin and Oddie, active euthanasia benefitsonly the family members despite having moral implications (Boonin andOddie 47). They are relieved massive use of resources and time spentcaring for their beloved one. They are able to focus on developmentalissues without been entangled by prolonged illness. Freud Sigmundimmensely disapproves his decision during his theory of instincts. Freud strongly proposes that people should not be allowed to liveagainst their consent. It adds to mental suffering increasing theirfate. allows people to die easily with a dignified life. As stated by Freud, people should be allowed to make their finaldecision when the encounter terminal illness. This allows them tofeel respected and they die peacefully. Freud associate suicide withself-destruction instincts. He argues that is not aself-destruction act but an act conducted when the possible treatmentmeasures in surgery, pharmacology are exhausted.

Various countries have been questioned for allowingeuthanasia. Belgium and Netherlands upholds active euthanasia. Theargue that each person as his own consent to determine the end of hislife which afflicted by severe ailment (Boonin and Oddie 47). Countries such as Ireland, Croatia, Serbia and Poland highly objecteuthanasia. Any doctors who facilitates euthanasia and proof existedreceives a sentence of between seven to fourteen years. It isconsidered a murder case despite of the condition involved. Thesecountries argue that euthanasia undermines research in medicine,changes the conscience of the public and eliminate the final growthstage of the patient. In addition to their arguments, euthanasiaviolate medical ethics, givens doctors too much powers and leads toinvoluntary euthanasia that is equated to suicide (Boonin and Oddie50).

Myassessment regarding the arguments

Despite concrete arguments concerning euthanasia, is shouldnot be allowed. The advocators insist euthanasia is the way to reducepain by patients. Nevertheless, the action undermines an effort todiscovery of various ways of treatment and alleviation of pain. Deathis final and no research can go past death. The law of euthanasia inthe supporter countries should be rectified to ignite the spirit ofresearch among the scientist. All human beings have intrinsic valueregardless of the condition they are undergoing. is likelyto affect the psychology of patients enormously and it reduces anypossibility of recovery. Severe deterioration of health induces thepatients to call for euthanasia as opposed to having positive believeto life. Life is valuable to be left to decisions of human beings andno one can sufficiently predict the impossibility of recovery.Natural death is a respect and honor to life. People should allowedexperiencing full life with the hope of recovery under any givencondition.

Conclusion

is a process that eliminates suffering byutilizing medicines or withdrawal of medical care to induce death. Itis heavily criticized in many countries and the perpetrators areaccused of murder. Nevertheless, some countries such as Netherlandsand Belgium allow euthanasia under dire illness to end sufferingexperience by the patients. has several benefits. Itrelieves the family of the afflicted family footing high bills in thehospital. The patient is relieved from excruciation pain and hisconsent is observed in voluntary euthanasia. It has disadvantages, aslife is not respected. It affects other patients whose conditions aredeterioration negatively and they are likely to prefer euthanasia asthe only option. Moreover, it cripples scientific research concerningthe cure of terminally illnesses. It should be disputed to give wayto natural death.

Workcited

David Boonin andGraham Oddie. &quotActive and Passive &quot in What`sWrong: Applied Ethicists and Their Critics, ed. Rachels, James (NewYork: Oxford University Press, (2010), 46-50.

R.G.Frey, DPhil Professor of Philosophy, Bowling Green StateUniversity &quotThe Fear of a Slippery Slope,&quot and Physician-Assisted Suicide: (2008), 10- 20.