The Wrongfulness and The Goodness Of Euthanasia Assignment | Euthanasia
The Wrongfulness Of Euthanasia
Euthanasia is the termination of life, which to most is morally wrong, as it is an act against the interests of human beings or animals. Additionally, it is feared that if the approach is legalized, it will expose susceptible individuals to the pressure of wanting to die. However, from a practical perspective, the approach allows individuals to undergo dignified death at a chosen time, making them peaceful. Most terminally ill patients undergo a lot of pain, as well as the loss of dignity and the anticipation of a slow and painful death.
The Goodness Of Euthanasia
Although death is a private issue that does not require government interference, assisting the death per se is not permissible in most nations. However, death may be a good thing for some individuals due to their state of health. Additionally, it may prove beneficial for relatives, the sick individual, and other guardians as well (Ash). Mostly, patients that qualify for euthanasia have undergone coma for long durations, those with terminal ailments, or even infants with severe mutations. Although it may sound cruel to want to end the life of an individual, it is essential to consider the burden under which guardians go through. To prolong the life of an individual who is terminally ill might sometimes present costly burdens that may result in suicide of guardian due to stress.
To see euthanasia, assisted or not as an answer for some ailments, challenges the will of caregivers, to learn on ways to show empathy. However, showing empathy can also be done by recognizing and respecting a patient’s wish not to continue suffering. While the best solution for caring for patients is care in a way that doesn’t make them feel like a burden, it is essential to note that the right to die is a personal choice (Math and Chaturvedi). Ethically, assisted euthanasia goes directly against the role of a doctor as a healer. Moreover, there are chances that incompetent persons could extend it to susceptible patients or the public. Some anti-euthanasia individuals also equate doctors who perform it, to a killer as it is an act of ending another’s life. Such perspectives are based more on the caregiver, and the patient is deprived of the right to have an opinion concerning their state. Caregiving for a patient with a terminal ailment, such as stage four cancers, omits the possibility of healing. Consequently, such a circumstance shifts the role of a physician from the healer to a reliever, especially when it becomes unbearable for the patient. Therefore, just as it is impossible to coerce a patient into committing suicide or having a physician get pushed to assist suicide, it is critical to note that both have a choice.
Selfish intentions of family members could lead individuals in misusing euthanasia, to inherit a patient’s property. As a result, some policies, such as those in the Indian Medical Council, state that assisted suicide needs not to interfere with the compassion of physicians. Thus, the council advocated for the protection of patients and their physicians from lawsuits.
All the same, there are instances where patients refuse medical treatment to prolong life, which is well recognized by the law (Len). For instance, blood cancer patients may opt for passive euthanasia by refusing to feed, it is medically allowed to abort sixteen-week old fetuses. Nevertheless, most euthanasia patients request it due to their depressive states. Such depressed patients demand palliative care, care of empathetic and humane caregivers, and consider the goodness of euthanasia.
The moral status of physicians is to save a life by offering treatment, and acting in contradiction of that is committing murder. For instance, a doctor’s moral status is to save an individual from bleeding out in an emergency room. On the other hand, the same doctor’s moral standard in turning off a ventilator after foreseeing death is justifiable. Thus, it is, at times, conventional for physicians to terminate treatment, as long as it is for the interest of their patients. Moreover, even when death is imminent, assisted euthanasia get done as a means to relieve a patient of suffering (Len). For euthanasia to be subsequent, doctors usually weigh the options of whether treatments to prolong life, are of, or of no benefit to the patient. Additionally, the physicians consider if the procedures are too burdensome or if a patient’s life is worth prolonging. As a result, if the doctor decides to perform euthanasia, it is to the interest of a patient.
On other occasions, euthanasia gets termed as a moral good for patients, as the withdrawal of life is of benefit (Len). For instance, it would not be morally right to decline performing assisted dying from a fully incompetent patient, and caregivers agree with euthanasia. In contrast, refusal will get seen as ethically wrong as it is not in the interest of the patient in question, thereby perceiving the rejection as discordant. Preforming euthanasia does not prohibit the offering of good palliative care. Instead, it incorporates empathetic concern, and respect for a patient’s independence, making dignified death an option.
In conclusion, euthanasia, as its name goes, means good death and needs to get seen as such. Additionally, it categorizes as active, where one takes something with the intent to cause death, or passive, where physicians refuse to offer supportive measures. Also, it is voluntary, where patients give consent to perform euthanasia, or involuntary, where the patient’s relative provide the permission to perform it. Euthanasia is also assisted, where physicians recommend medication with intent to end life.
Ash, T. “Euthanasia: a good thing? “ 2011. Accessed on 21 June 2020 from https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/euthanasia-good-thing/
Len, Doyal.” Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized.” 2001.Accessed on 21 June 2020 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121585/
Suresh Bada Math and Santosh K. Chaturvedi. “Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die.” 2012. Accessed on 21 June 2020 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/