Special Offer!Pay less for your papers
Get 15% off your first order
|← Chapters of Utah History 1700||Ratio Analysis →|
Euthanasia has been a subject that has attracted equally a lot of positive and negative criticism in the public. It forms one of the greatest medical arguments in history with many people divided on whether to support the practice or do away with it. Many governments have already adopted the procedure in their laws. In Belgium and Switzerland, some forms of euthanasia ware legalised. Euthanasia is a word that translates from the Greek language. Euthanasia means mercy killing. This involves the termination of a person’s life in a manner that is painless (Parkinson et al. 82).
There are two main types of euthanasia are active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves the doing away of medication that a patient needs to be alive. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, involves the physician giving the patient medicine that causes his or her death (Neil, Coady, Thompson and Kuhse 722).
The practicing of euthanasia weakens the respect and sanctity of human life. The intentional killing of a human being is considered wrong according to the human traditions and religions. The humans believe that life is sacred. This is because the human beings are made in the likeness of God. This means that only the Supreme Being (God) is the one who is entitled to control human life. Euthanasia goes as ahead to violate this fundamental principle of human beings of having respect to human life since it brings about the death of the patient by a physician (Georges 15).
Active euthanasia is not justified because it violates the patient’s right of protection from harm. This is because the patient is given medication that is not aimed at curing him or her but actually to inflict harm by causing death. On the other hand, passive euthanasia leads to the violation of the patient’s right to receive the adequate medication that is aimed at sustaining his or her life. This means that the patient is denied from continuing to benefit from the necessary medication needed to keep them alive (Parkinson et al. 82).
Active euthanasia violates the specific duty that is delegated to the physicians to the patients. The main role of physicians is to preserve human life and alleviate suffering. The very act of practicing euthanasia means that the physician is violating the noble duty delegated to them. The practice also goes against the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians to guide them in their medical profession. Therefore, the practice of euthanasia is not built on medical set of duties hence it cannot be justified (Emanuel, Fairclough and Emanuel 2461).
The practice of euthanasia has a possibility of coercion of the individuals who chose the practice. This means that an individual’s autonomy over his or her life is lost. Some of the patients might be forced or subjected to pressure to ask for the procedure to be undertaken. The patients will mainly opt for the procedure to avoid the burden they are imposing on the family or caretakers (Sikora and Lewins 68).
Poor decision-making might take place in the instances that the patient has illnesses that affects the decision-making processes. This will include the conditions such as depression and uncontrolled pain that will make ones decision to be poor. The condition will influence the person’s capacity to make a sound judgement about undertaking the procedure. This means that the person will undertake the procedure without having a well-informed and competent decision (Neil, Coady, Thompson and Kuhse 722).
Supporters of the practice of euthanasia also argue that an individual has every right on when and how he or she desires their life to end. They believe that the wishes of this person should be accorded with at most respect since they know what is best for their lives (Parkinson et al. 82).
Most people also support euthanasia because they feel that the quality of the life of the patient should not become so bad that it leads to physical or emotional pain. This means that the act is allowed to enable such patients to be able to avoid the untold suffering that results from the deterioration of their quality of life. It is for this reason that euthanasia is founded upon since its main aim s to alleviate the human suffering (Sikora and Lewins 68).
Some supporters of euthanasia also argue that the practice should be allowed to promote the decongestion of the hospitals or health care facilities. This is attributed to the increased health care demand that has led to overcrowding of the hospitals. The supporters of this issue argue that the practicing of euthanasia will allow those who are meant to die to do so. This will allow those who have better chances of having a good prognosis to be allowed to benefit from the treatment give. This will save on the resources that are scarce to only be used in those individuals that are likely to live on (Parkinson et al. 82).
In conclusion, Euthanasia is a practice that still attracts equal criticism from the opposers and the supporters. However, euthanasia is a practice that contravenes the dignity of life and the existence of humankind. Respect of life should be upheld and nobody is entitled to taking that away. Only the Supreme Being has control over the lives of human beings. The medical profession also finds fault in the procedure since it is against the Hippocratic Oath that governs their daily practice in the delivery of health services. Therefore, the care of an individual should be holistic, should cover ones entire lifetime, and aimed at promoting the sustaining of human of human life. It is morally wrong for the life of an individual patient to be terminated by persons who should be there to assist the patient gain full recovery and eliminate their suffering.