Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is an act of intentionally ending the life of a suffering human or animal. The human being must have a terminal illness, be in persistent pain or have an incapacitating physical disorder. Euthanasia is carried out in different ways such as withdrawal of treatment, removal from artificial life support machines or administering of drugs that help end human life. Euthanasia can either be voluntary, where the patient chooses to end their life, or involuntary, where either the guardian or the physician decides to end the life of a severely ill person. Mercy killing has been a topic discussed across various disciplines such as human rights, ethical, economic, health, religion, spiritual, law, and cultural and social aspects. Euthanasia is a topic that requires critical discussion before deciding whether its right or wrong.
There are several reasons against euthanasia in the contemporary world. The major reason given against euthanasia is the elimination of invalid individuals, yet palliative care counters this argument. Palliative care argues that dying should receive compassionate and creative attention. In almost all countries’ constitution, the “Right to Life” is a right for all the citizens, including those with a terminal illness (Math & Chaturvedi 2012). Terminating life under whichever condition only contradicts the right to life article in the constitution. It is the work of the governments to protect the life of its individual. Therefore, legalizing merciful killing will lead to the government withdrawing investments in healthcare for terminal diseases as the right to life will be compromised. At times, patients seeking for euthanasia might have a mental illness, especially depression. Legalizing of mercy killing can lead to mistakes such as ending the life of people who could only be needing psychiatric help. At times, family members have called for ending a sick member’s life to inherit their property or money. Such cases would be expected to rise due to the presence of corrupt professionals in the medical field. With euthanasia, commercializing of health care would increase. In many cases, patients from poor background have withdrawn treatment due to lack of money to pay for healthcare (Math & Chaturvedi 2012). Medical professionals may, therefore, offer euthanasia at a cost in most hospitals, for the old and terminally ill people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, several arguments to support euthanasia have been raised. The most used argument is giving an individual a dignified death. People with incurable diseases or chronic debilitating conditions such as severe mental illness should be allowed to die for the caregiver burden is extremely heavy (Math & Chaturvedi 2012). In some cases, the caregiver burden may include financial burden, emotional burden, time, social, and physical burdens, which the caregiver might not be able to provide. Refusal of treatment is an option for the ill and has been discussed as a form of euthanasia. Many patients with terminal illness or severe physical disability have wished not to be a burden to their families (Math & Chaturvedi 2012). Many of such patients have suggested having their life ended to avoid the big medical bill they continue to incurred their loved ones. Euthanasia encourages organ transplant and hence help patients in need of those organs for survival.
Euthanasia has been a topic that has been loved and rejected at the same time, different arguments have been used to either fight it or embrace it. In some countries like Holland, the legalization of euthanasia has led to a decline in the quality of healthcare for terminal diseases. On the other hand, many patients have benefited from euthanasia by getting vital body organs donated by euthanasia patients. The topic, therefore, requires critical discussion and evaluation.
Reference
Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: right to life vs right to die. The Indian journal of medical research , 136 (6), 899.
