Patients who are terminally ill grapple with unbearable pain, anguish and hopelessness. Furthermore, after their death, many patients leave their families in debt. It is for the purpose of relieving these patients of their pain and burdens that various countries have adopted euthanasia. This controversial procedure allows healthcare professionals to end the suffering of patients with no hope of recovery. In the recent past, euthanasia has been extended beyond its original purpose. Today, in such countries as Belgium, individuals with mental illness can apply for euthanasia. This development is indeed frightening and calls for the need for intervention. Euthanasia for mentally ill patients is unnecessary, harmful and poses a serious threat to entire societies.
Relieving patients of unbearable pain is the main reason that underlies euthanasia. It is indeed true that most of the patients who have undergone this euthanasia endured unimaginable pain that stripped their lives of all meaning and purpose. The proponents of euthanasia for mental illness establish their belief on the premise that mental illness also causes unbearable pain. It could be true that an individual who is mentally ill is grappling with immense pain that causes them tremendous discomfort and anguish. For example, depressed individuals tend to be deeply unhappy and lose all interest in the affairs that should bring them joy. There is no doubt that these individuals endure suffering. However, this suffering cannot be compared to the tremendous physical and emotional pain experienced by the terminally ill. Essentially, the argument that mental illness causes unbearable emotional suffering is not weighty enough to justify ending a patient’s life.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The risk of mentally ill patients being forced to undergo euthanasia against their will is another reason why nations like Belgium should roll back their ultra-progressive euthanasia laws. Various mental illnesses impair the judgment of patients. For example, a deeply depressed individual may not see the need to proceed with treatment for this condition. Essentially, the condition overwhelms the individual that they lose all faith in the treatment process. This individual may be pressured to end their lives when their desire is to approach practitioners for treatment. Unless appropriate safeguards are instituted, euthanasia for the mentally ill remains dangerous and should therefore be forbidden. That the patient is indeed sane and capable of making sober decisions is one of the assumptions that underlie euthanasia. As already noted, mental illnesses may impair the patient’s judgment, raising questions about their sanity. Since it is difficult to establish conclusively that a patient is indeed sane and understands the implications of their decisions, euthanasia should only be extended to terminally ill patients who desperately desire relief from their anguish.
Another argument against euthanasia rests on the fact that different practitioners may offer varying assessments of a patient’s condition and prognosis. For example, after evaluating a patient, one therapist may find that this patient is grappling with intense suffering and that their death would bring relief. A different practitioner may render a different diagnosis. Given the fact that it is difficult to obtain a universally accepted evaluation of the condition and the hope of recovery of a mentally ill patient, euthanasia should be approached with extreme caution. Another question that euthanasia raises concerns the promise of treatment. It could be that initially, the treatment that a patient is offered fails to deliver the desired outcomes. The disappointment and frustration that the patient experiences may push them to apply for euthanasia. However, this patient should remember that for mental health interventions to work, patience, full cooperation from the patient and faith in the effectiveness of treatment is needed. Moreover, with advances in science and research, new and more effective interventions are being developed. Instead of rushing to seek doctors to end their lives, mentally ill patients should have faith and explore all interventions.
In conclusion, euthanasia continues to divide opinions. Whether it should be extended to mentally ill patients has elicited strong debate. On the one hand are people who feel that euthanasia is a demonstration of mercy and helps to end the suffering of the patient. These individuals are convinced that euthanasia delivers the same benefits that it offers terminally ill patients. On the other hand, there are people who caution that euthanasia could mark the beginning of the decline of mankind and the respect for human life. While both sides raise valid points, there is no doubt that euthanasia should not be availed to those who do not need it and for whom effective interventions are readily available.
