It is indeed true that with high power and knowledge about science and the ability to prolong life in situations that would otherwise guarantee death comes great responsibility and brings to light considerable ethical concerns. While some people support the right to die when the medical conditions or the state of the sick become dire, others support the notion that people should be assisted to stay alive for the longest time logically possible. Moreover, some people find it criminal to end the life of a loved one when it would have been possible to keep them alive via medical procedures no matter the cost of keeping them alive. In the case of Helga Wanglie, who was an 86 year old woman that suffered cardiopulmonary failures such people argue that life is priceless and must never be equated to any medical bill no matter how high.
Arguments for prolonging Life
The outstanding evidence for the drive to save lives is pegged to the fact that the entire practice and philosophy of medicine is inclined towards saving lives and not assisted death, otherwise known as euthanasia (Federoff, 2013) . The fact that new technologies in medicine make it possible for doctors to preserve life even after all its meaning diminishes puzzles physicians and patients alike. Additionally, doctors are always inclined to want to do all they can to save the lives of their patients (Federoff, 2013) . The other reason for prolonging life is pegged on morality and begs to answer the question of moral good versus evil. Saving life is naturally viewed as the right thing to do when patients are faced with life-threatening situations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Arguments against prolonging Life
Similar to the proponents of extending life, people who oppose the prolonging of life believe that doing so is acting against the dictate of nature and the fact that whether or not we prolong life, living ultimately ends at the point of death which is inevitable for all people (Huo, Lei, Zhang, Zhao, & He, 2019) . It is therefore in vain, they argue, to try and prolong life even when it is evident that we all die someday. They believe people with the capacity to continue their lives due to their financial abilities to cater to the enormous financial implications that come with the procedures are acting unfairly when compared to people who lack such skills (Schemec, 1983) . They speak from the point of awareness that choices about life and death have always been part and parcel of the living experience.
Although advancements in technology and innovations may prolong life, medicine ought to be keen on improving the quality of life and not the quantity of life because living along the poor quality of life is less worthy than living a short well-deserved life. According to Huo (2019), years are being added to a human being, but life is not necessarily be added to many years. Past research has focused on the extension of life, which has resulted in age-related diseases, medical expenses, and other social difficulties that the family of the loved one is left to deal with after their death. Just because we have technology does not mean we need to use it. Limitations must be drawn at places where the family and the patient see no room for improvement. In case there will be any form of development, the patient must not remain in a vegetative state for the rest of their lives.
References
Federoff, N. (2013, July 25). Can We Trust Monsanto with our Food?: The Real Truth about GMOs. Sustainability, 16 (2), pp. 137–141.
Huo, H., Lei, Y., Zhang, Q., Zhao, L., & He, K. (2019). China's coke industry: Recent policies, technology shift, and implication for energy and the environment. Science Direct, 1 (1), 1-3.
Schemec, H. (1983). Issue and Debate: Should Life always be Prolonged? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/28/science/issue-and-debate-should-life-always-be-prolonged.html
