Euthanasia is the word used to describe the deliberate and conscious decision to end a person's life in order to reduce their suffering. The act is also called mercy killing. The central premise that drives Brock's conviction is that a person is entitled to autonomy and self determination about their life. Brock argues that each individual should have the right to decide on what to do with their life. Their right should be more superior than the rights of the government, medics or any religious organisation. After all, this individual is the one who knows and feels what they are going through (Brock, 2015).
Keeping a person alive while they are going through treatment that may or may not work is unkind. The person may lose hope or the will to live if they are faced with constant pain and suffering. Some illnesses strip a person of their dignity and leave them at the mercy of the others. A once independent person who has to learn to depend on others, may feel that death is preferable to this kind of life. Being fed, washed and assisted to go the bathroom can make one feel worse than a child. Additionally, living like this is difficult as the aspect of choice is completely lost (Sulmasy et al., 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Generally speaking, each person knows what life means to them. When the meaning is no longer present, they should have the right to choose to end it. However, this could open up opportunities for forced or involuntary euthanasia. It could lead to fake requests that are aimed at people meeting their own selfish ends. In any event, Brock was trying to say that the ultimate choice should lie with the person whose life is at stake. Assisting them to carry out their wish is not wrong because it restores their dignity and autonomy.
References
Brock, D. W. (2015). Good medical ethics. Journal of medical ethics , 41 (1), 34-36.
Sulmasy, D. P., Ely, E. W., & Sprung, C. L. (2016). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Jama , 316 (15), 1600-1600.
