The Debate about Life and Death
Chidinma Anunagba
The City College of New York
English 21003
Professor Slentz
Abstract
The concept of euthanasia, which has its roots in Greek, refers to a peaceful passing. There are many facets to euthanasia, including active (the act of doing something that causes death), passive (the act of not providing treatment or supportive measures), voluntary (the act of giving consent), involuntary (the act of receiving consent from a guardian), and physician-assisted (the act of having a physician prescribe the medication while the patient or a third party administers the medication to cause death). The issue of whether or not such methods have any place in modern health care has been brought up in discussions on the request to end one’s life prematurely. This discussion touches on a wide range of intricate and ever-changing topics, including those pertaining to the law, ethics, human rights, health, religion, economics, spiritual life, society, and culture in civilized societies.
Euthanasia: The Debate about Life and Death
The goal of euthanasia is to end a person’s life voluntarily in order to alleviate their pain. Some terminally ill patients ask their doctors to conduct euthanasia to alleviate their suffering. According to BBC (2014), complex considerations must be made. Factors include the legislation in effect, the individual’s mental and physical state, and their own values and preferences. Assisted suicide is one form of euthanasia that is relevant here. An individual is assisted in suicide by a medical professional. This person probably endures constant, unrelenting pain. It is possible that they have also been told they have terminal illness. Their doctor will decide on the most efficient and comfortable approach.
The common conception of euthanasia is that it involves a physician actively ending a patient’s life. Active euthanasia describes this method. By contrast, the term “passive euthanasia” is occasionally used to refer to suppression or minimizing life-sustaining therapies to hasten a person’s death (Karaarslan, 2014). In addition, euthanasia is considered voluntary if the patient makes the decision to terminate their life on their own terms and then actively seeks assistance in doing so. For a person to be a victim of non-voluntary euthanasia, another person must make the decision to terminate their life. Typically, the decision is made by a close relative.The morality and legality of assisted suicide has been the subject of heated discussion for decades. Presently, euthanasia laws vary widely across nations and states.
Some people have moral objections to euthanasia because they view it as a form of murder. There are those who believe that the value of human life is diminished when one has the option to hasten or delay their own death (Mcneice, 2022). Even more so, euthanasia is opposed by many religious and spiritual communities for the same reasons. Some medical professionals and PAS skeptics worry about potential ethical issues. The Hippocratic Oath has been taken by medical professionals for almost 2, 500 years (Pereira, 2011). All doctors should take this pledge as a reminder to treat their patients with compassion and never do any harm to them. Some have argued that the Hippocratic Oath endorses euthanasia since it prevents further pain and suffer. On the other side, there are many who argue that it is detrimental to both the individual and family relations if they have to witness their loved one in pain.
Even while euthanasia has been around for a while in the West, it is clear that it has never been accepted in American society or legislation. Only in recent years has euthanasia been a topic of widespread debate and anxiety. There are a number of factors contributing to the rising acceptance of euthanasia, including the fact that modern medicine has made it feasible to sustain and prolong human life to unprecedented lengths (Procon.org, 2018). The euthanasia movement has clearly advanced for pragmatic reasons, such as the helplessness and fear of unnecessary pain that typically accompany such advanced types of treatment. But there are deeper grounds behind this euthanasia phenomenon, motives that are philosophical and cultural or in nature.
There is a common misconception that terminally sick individuals only have two choices: euthanasia or a slow, painful death. Actually, there is a happy medium, and it takes the form of empathetic and innovative care. Recent years of painstaking research in Hospice and palliative have demonstrated that all undesirable symptoms experienced by those with terminal disease can be eased or greatly alleviated by procedures already in use (Wach, 2018). For example, the hospice movement has made it possible for terminally ill people to have their symptoms treated either in the comfort of their own homes or at a specially designed hospice facility.
The United Kingdom has advanced facilities for terminally ill patients, but a House of Lords committee has determined that the law should not be changed to allow euthanasia (Wach, 2018). This is not to discount the fact that there are still many people who are passing away in nursing homes and hospitals without access to these innovations. It is true that many people are receiving inadequate treatment. It is mainly because there are not any nearby facilities or because doctors there don’t have the training to deal with terminally sick patients. The solution is not to make euthanasia easier for doctors to access, but to expand access to care that is both effective and appropriate (Karaarslan, 2014). The incentives for innovative caregiving in both individuals and businesses would be weakened by a law legalizing euthanasia.
It is possible that doctors’ inability to adequately manage patients’ symptoms or their insistence on administering interventions that are neither medically necessary nor likely to improve patients’ quality of life have contributed to rising support for legalizing assisted suicide (BBC, 2014). Because of this, many people are wary of seeing the doctor for fear of being ignored or taken advantage of, which is understandable. The immediate impulse is to look for ways to hold medical professionals more responsible.
Paradoxically, legalized euthanasia would offer doctors more authority and less accountability. Patients typically opt for euthanasia after receiving information from their doctors regarding their diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options, and expected level of suffering (Mcneice, 2022). It is not uncommon for patients to give in to a doctor’s strongly recommended treatment. However, it is not always easy to be sure in these situations. Sometimes doctors get it wrong when trying to diagnose something. Predictions might be way off. It’s possible that there have been or will be new treatments discovered soon that the doctor isn’t aware of. It’s possible that the doctor has fallen behind the times in terms of managing symptoms.
Medical professionals, like everyone else, might be temptation. It is possible that factors like fatigue or bias toward the patient could influence their own decision-making (Pereira, 2011). The doctor should not be entrusted with the kind of authority and responsibility that comes with the option of voluntary euthanasia. Any doctor who performs a voluntary euthanasia ought to be considered an offender and answerable to the state.
On the other hand, proponents of euthanasia believe it should be an option in reasonable circumstances. The law, which is now ineffective, should be the starting point, as evidenced by the persistence of court cases that frequently include relatives already grieving the death of a family member and simultaneously agonizing legal fights (Wach, 2018). Many people who are fighting terminal, debilitating diseases with the help of their loved ones want to die so that they can finally put an end to their pain and suffering. To refuse this choice is to extend an individual’s or family’s anguish. For this reason, when faced with a terminal illness, the only humane, rational, and compassionate option is to enable the patient to end their own life. The existing restrictions are unjust because they force people in extreme physical and/or emotional pain to continue to suffer against their will. Decisions concerning life should be read widely to include the freedom to life and entitlement to life as per the human rights in the European convention.
Overall, when all of a terminally sick patient’s material, psychological, and spiritual needs are cared for, pleas for euthanasia are extremely unusual. Considering that existing treatments may usually alleviate the symptoms that lead to a request for euthanasia, it is of paramount importance to make high-quality end-of-life care accessible to everyone who need it. Despite the value placed on patient autonomy, research shows that legalizing euthanasia could have disastrous consequences for our society in its entirety. Involuntary euthanasia, patient exploitation, and a hampered quest for improved treatments are all possible outcomes of such policies. Legislation legalizing euthanasia is morally reprehensible and should be vehemently opposed since it undermines, rather than protects, patient autonomy and avoids providing truly quality care because effective alternatives exist.
References
BBC. (2014). BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: Anti-euthanasia arguments. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml.
Karaarslan, B. (2014). Assessment of nurses’ views about euthanasia according to their departments. Dicle Medical Journal, 41(4), 700–706. https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2014.04.0503.
Mcneice, A. (2022). France confronts issue of legalizing euthanasia. China Daily. https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202209/22/WS632bca49a310fd2b29e7929c.html.
Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Current Oncology, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v18i2.883.
Procon.org. (2018). Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments – Euthanasia – ProCon.org. Retrieved from Euthanasia website: https://euthanasia.procon.org/top-10-pro-con-arguments/
Wach, B. (2018). Arguments in the dispute over legalizing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Part I. Analiza I Egzystencja, 42, 95–113. https://doi.org/10.18276/aie.2018.42- 05.
