Euthanasia: The Right to Die Philosophy

Introduction 

Mercy death is the process where an individual let someone die without helping him or her while mercy killing is simply a situation where an individual takes a direct action to help in terminating the life of a terminally ill patient without obtaining the patient’s consent. The choice to engage in mercy killing is founded on the assumption that a person’s life might not be useful and in case the person was in a position to communicate, then he would support the idea of dying (Quill, Lo & Brock, 2008). The evolution of the medical industry concerning the technological and practice invention has allowed the medical practitioners to extend the life of the patient. In the contemporary world, there has been increased demand for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This topic has created massive controversy in the US particularly among the conservatively religious cross-section of the entire population. Every person has his clear experience related to death and of its aftermath (Cohen et al., 2006). On the other hand, euthanasia has also led to increased questions from the ethical field. It might be important to note that assisted suicide is adequately workable under a defined legal framework and have substantially been embraced by the masses. 

Pros 

The government should legalise the right to die as a way for the citizens to exercise their individual right and determine when it is time for them to die. According to Ferrand et al., (2003), the practice is meant to benefit the patient and requires a medical practitioner to help the patient. A terminally patient often undergoes intense pain, and they often have few days to live hence the need to help them end their suffering. It points to the direction that terminally ill patient should be allowed to end their lives, but this should be done without necessarily degrading life. It is the right of every patient to accept or reject medication, therefore; it would be only reasonable also to allow them to make the critical decision to end their lives without denying these patients the right to quality life. 

Based on the concept of self-identification, a majority of people tend to evaluate their lives quality based on personal values and the belief systems (MeiselMoulton, Hill & Burdette, 2006). People can end their life while at the same time maintain human dignity. Euthanasia should be legalised the patient is in a better position to make a sound decision. It should be acceptable for the medical practitioners to end the life of the terminally patient using morphine but this should be based entirely on the patient’s consent. Based on the utilitarianism theory, euthanasia should be performed provided it would cause greater good to a larger group of people. In this case, the larger group would comprise of the family members who have heavily invested in the medication of their patient and the state. The treatment is often costly such that at the end of the treatment after the death of the patient, the families are forced into the cycle of poverty. 

Cons 

Legalisation of euthanasia will significantly comprise the primary purpose of life as the society will experience numerous unnecessary deaths. In the event euthanasia is made legal, then there is a higher possibility that the doctor-patient relationship would greatly suffer from distrust. It might be the case because every patient might not feel safe at the hands of the doctor because their fate would entirely lie on the decision of the physician who might take their lives for certain personal reasons. In addition to this, if it is made illegal, there are higher chances that people might misuse it. For instances, the patients and families might use it to escape financial challenges while on the other hand; medical practitioners might use it for self-benefits which would negatively impact its usefulness (MeiselMoulton, Hill & Burdette, 2006). There are those groups of individual who have remained opposed to euthanasia based on the notions founded on personal religion. In most religious faiths, life is a gift from God hence the need to be treasured and preserve it. 

Further, life is precious and was given by God; therefore, man has no right to end it because he cannot give life. Therefore, religious groups have countered the legalisation of euthanasia because it goes against the will of God who is the creator and giver of life. According to the West's Encyclopedia of American Law, it stated that euthanasia is a criminal homicide a synonym made at the request of the patient. Homicide, in the sphere of the judiciary, is considered as an intervention taken with an expressed intention to end life or to retrieve an intractable suffering (MeiselMoulton, Hill & Burdette, 2006). Based on this reasons, it is important that the right to die should not be allowed because it would result in many problems than benefits. 

Analysis 

Ideology: 

The conservatives are opposed to the argument that supports euthanasia stating that its practice ultimately contradicts the natural human instincts of survival. Neither mercy killing nor mercy death is morally accepted, and when euthanasia is made legal, it might open doors to misuse where individuals would end up killing other people for their personal interest. The liberals, on the other hand, are in support of euthanasia because they believe that every doctor has the moral duty to end the patient’s suffering via encouragement, support and even through mitigation which entails the use of medication to end life. As supporters of mercy killing, they believe that it should be made legal to ensure that the terminally ill patient can access the service much much quicker. These proponents of euthanasia have thus argued that the government’s move to make the act illegal is hurtful and is against the rights of those patients who are terminally ill (MeiselMoulton, Hill & Burdette, 2006). 

Media: 

The media has always been against euthanasia based on the argument that it is against human rights. Media sources like CNN strongly criticize the practice stating that they would not take part in encouraging and advocating for the prescription of the deadly drug to any patient to please an individual (Ferrand et al., 2003). Media sources have been holding talk shows with experts in various fields who ultimately reject the legalisation of euthanasia based on moral and religious reasons. If it is allowed, an individual might be tempted to use euthanasia to escape their numerous financial hardships or might be subject to misuse for self-benefits. The media tends to highlight the consequences and the negatives that the country would be subjected to if euthanasia is made legal. Some of the major reasons that have been raised through media sources that are against the right to die include: it would be subject to misuse, and it is contrary to the will of God. 

Analysis of sources: 

The debate on euthanasia began late in the year 1870. Euthanasia was practiced throughout Rome and Ancient Greece. As a way to accelerate individual deaths, euthanasia got the support of Socrates, Plato, and Seneca the Elder (Quill, Lo & Brock, 2008). Despite the massive strong opposition to the practice of euthanasia, it has continued to be practiced in most regions of the universe. Around mid-1800, there was the adoption of morphine that was used to reduce the pains of death, and in 1848 John Warren recommended approval and implemented mercy killing (Ferrand et al., 2003). Based on studies conducted in this field, arguments raised against suicide seems applicable to mercy death but euthanasia is greatly complicated where another individual is required to commit the actual killing of the patient. 

Euthanasia is against the Hippocratic Oath which is applicable to all the medical practitioners. They are required to take a vow never to take a life of their patient but should do everything to protect it (Becker & Becker, 2001). The oath demands that all medical practitioners should save a life through administering medication that would only relieve pain but not cause death irrespective of any circumstances. According to Quill, Lo & Brock, (2008), there are instances where it might be acceptable to end the life of the (a) patient using a pain-relieving drug such as morphine, but this should be done after seeking the patient’s consent. 

Based on the utilitarianism theory, the argument is whether by taking the life of a terminally ill patient will result in a greater good to to the majority of the people. The question is whether death can be excused when its primary motive is to alleviate human suffering. Each patient has the constitutional right to live free from pain, but in a situation where their life becomes miserable, full of grief, and it is proven that they would never get healed then they should be helped to end their life (Quill, Lo & Brock, 2008). Choosing euthanasia is a form of exercise of autonomy of the dying patient and should never be restricted. It is the duty of the government to come up with a well-established framework of practicing euthanasia to ensure that it is within the law. It is necessary not to let the individual continue suffering and at the end die just because his or her rights are denied. Therefore, based on the proponents of mercy killing it is essential for the terminally ill patients to access and use euthanasia because this is believed to be a good move to provide them with a dignity death that is free from pain (Hermsen & ten Have, 2002). 

Conclusion 

Despite the strong opposition to the practice of euthanasia, it has continued to be practiced worldwide. There has been heated debate on the legalisation of euthanasia for a very long time. Currently, the euthanasia is practiced in most states, but others have continued to illegalize it. The essay has critically analyzed euthanasia as a topic that has raised a lot of controversies throughout the US. Considerations of euthanasia and whether it should be practiced apparently attracts both legal and ethical issues. Media houses have been advocating to have euthanasia illegalize for the good of the patient, the economy and the family members who have invested an enormous sum of money in caring for these patients. According to the liberals, it is critical to ensure that no single human being will continue to suffer because they are denied the right to access euthanasia. The practice should be legalised and made accessible to all the citizens particularly those who are terminally ill. The conservative is strongly against the act since it is against the fundamental human right of the right to live. 

References 

Becker, L. C., & Becker, C. B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Ethics: PW (Vol. 3). Taylor & Francis. 

Cohen, J., Marcoux, I., Bilsen, J., Deboosere, P., van der Wal, G., &Deliens, L. (2006). European public acceptance of euthanasia: socio-demographic and cultural factors associated with the acceptance of euthanasia in 33 European countries. Social science &medicine , 63 (3), 743-756. 

Ferrand, E., Lemaire, F., Regnier, B., Kuteifan, K., Badet, M., Asfar, P., ...&Pochard, F. (2003). Discrepancies between perceptions by physicians and nursing staff of intensive care unit end-of-life decisions. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine , 167 (10), 1310-1315. 

Hermsen, M. A., & ten Have, H. A. (2002). Euthanasia in palliative care journals. Journal of pain and symptom management , 23 (6), 517-525. 

Meisel Moulton, B. E., Hill, T. D., & Burdette, A. (2006, June). Religion and trends in euthanasia attitudes among US adults, 1977–2004. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 249-272). Springer US. 

Quill, T. E., Lo, B., & Brock, D. W. (2008). Palliative options of last resort: a comparison of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, terminal sedation, physician- assisted suicide, and voluntary active euthanasia. In Giving death a helping hand (pp. 49-64). Springer Netherlands.