Among the hotly debated topics throughout history is euthanasia. The debate results in varying viewpoints with some believing that is should be allowed and a majority who lean towards the religious side believing it should not be legalized as only God has the right to take a life away. The last century has experienced incredible medical advancement with a man finding a cure to diseases that have previously plagued humanity without a cure. Still, there exist some illnesses that cannot be cured at present, plunging the sufferers in extreme suffering and pain. Such patients may need euthanasia to put an end to the agony the illnesses bring to them. However, different societies treat euthanasia differently with some attaching immorality to it, something that is not necessarily right. Therefore, voluntary euthanasia should be legalized in some cases where the patient’s life is much worse than death.
Also known as mercy killing, euthanasia refers to the intentional ending of life for relieving the pain of a sufferer. This is very different from suicide since, in the latter, the person takes their own life. Euthanasia is further categorized as active or passive with active euthanasia being criminal while passive is non-criminal (Sharp, 2019). In its present use, it is dependent on whether a person gives a consent before it is performed or not. The European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics Task Force took a stance in 2003 and stated that “medicalized killing of a person whether involuntary or non-voluntary is murder”. The provision ignored voluntary euthanasia that can be performed with the consent of the patient. Rationally, there are some cases where the patient experiences extreme suffering, like in the “locked-in” syndrome. This is a medical condition whereby part of the brainstem is damaged, with the facial muscles and body suffering paralysis. The patient only retains the consciousness and ability to perform eye movement. Tony Nicklinson a 58-year-old Briton who had been denied the right to die in 2012 by the High Court despite suffering from the locked-in syndrome (Richards, 2014). After suffering a stroke while on a business trip, he developed the incurable illness and lost all motor functions only retraining his cognitive abilities. He considered his life “a living nightmare” and begged for the administration of the euthanasia drug. Despite the application, he was denied voluntary death. This is an indicator that there are patients enduring such suffering and are condemned to doomed living. Due to such cases, it would be ethical to legalize euthanasia.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Euthanasia should be viewed as “good death” with care in considering its legality. Since ancient times, the Roman and Greek empires treated voluntary death as a good death. Athenians would be permitted to obtain poison so that they may use it for death. Romans also had no condemnation to those who were seeking to commit suicide so long as their bid showed no irrationality. This shows that throughout history different people have been looking at ways of addressing the euthanasia issue with various countries in the world embracing it while others refrain from it. This issue has caused society a lot of difficulties as depicted in some cases. For example, doctors in Harvard Medical School drafted a proposal in 1968 for the inclusion of brain death as the criteria upon which euthanasia could be founded. This was the initial step towards standardizing a reference point where the euthanasia could be allowed and accepted for all. The United States followed suit in 1972 where the first national hearing took place and euthanasia was called Death with Dignity. This was the beginning of the provision of the basis on the need to prolong a patient life yet the dignity and quality of his or her life are diminishing. It is believed that a considerable number of patients lose their lives annually without being informed that life-prolonging efforts had stalled and are instead are taken onto a “death road” with the intention of easing their suffering without their knowledge. This shows that medical professionals have already been practicing euthanasia only that legal frameworks are missing in these countries where it is still illegal. As such, it would only be ethical and honorable if the medical partners would be allowed to legally practice euthanasia because the legal provisions would also contain ways of ensuring that it is not abused (Sharp, 2019).
Those against euthanasia base their argument on religion. For example, Christians argue that only the maker should end a human life since it is a gift from him. Further, they argue that birth and death are processes of life which are ordained by deity and hence should not be interfered with. Christian religious teachings hold that God created man in his own image and likeness and believes that all should strive to live a life of not interfering with the intentions of the maker by preserving life. Additionally, churches argue against euthanasia because it devalues the worth of life since even if a patient is in a vegetative state, their life is not worthless before the eyes of God and hence it is wrong to imply that death is better for them.
In conclusion, the complexity of this topic makes its legislation, not an easy decision, especially for lawmakers. However, taking all arguments into account, it is only rational to legalize euthanasia especially in cases where patients are in unbearable pain. Again, even without the legal framework, it is clear that doctors practice it without mentioning it to patients. Legalizing it does not mean that it should be made an on-demand provision. Nicklinson could not comprehend the reason a developed democracy could not grant his wish to cut short his suffering and in an essay, he noted that “It cannot be acceptable in 21st-century Britain that I am denied the right to take my own life just because I am physically handicapped.” He added, “It is astonishing that in 1969 we could put a man on the moon, yet in 2012 we still cannot devise adequate rules for government-assisted dying”. Therefore, euthanasia is not killing but a way of drawing the inevitable death of a patient closer, and therefore it is ethical and should be legalized.
References
Richards, N. (2014). The death of the right-to-die campaigners (Respond to this article at. Anthropology Today , 30 (3), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12110
Sharp, S. (2019). Belief in Life After Death and Attitudes Toward Voluntary Euthanasia. Omega: Journal of Death & Dying , 79 (1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222817715755
