The Euthanasia Debate
Human beings have different ways of addressing situations of dilemma. However, some situations prove to be complicated and require the consideration of several factors before a final decision is made. Euthanasia is one of the situations that receive contradicting perspectives concerning moral acceptability as well as the position of humanity and the definition of correctness. When an individual is extremely ill and in severe pain, euthanasia is always seen as a better option than letting people suffer where the hope of recovering has already faded. For euthanasia, an extremely ill person’s life is terminated to save them from suffering and pain. However, Euthanasia has received a lot of negative criticism with most people claiming that euthanasia should be treated as murder. Many countries, such as the United Kingdom have maintained law against aiding anyone to kill themselves. The debate that has been developing concerning the acceptability of euthanasia consists of the party that believes that a patient should have authority over the way to end their life against a party that believes that legalizing euthanasia could pave the way for serious crimes. Euthanasia may be the only correct solution, although it may lead to double standards depending on the moral standards of the society in question.
Euthanasia may give undesired returns depending on the reaction of the relevant stakeholders. First, euthanasia involves the literal killing of a patient. However, the excuse behind euthanasia can be misused by individuals with ill intentions to carry out a murder (Johnson, 2017). For example, the safety of patients in hospitals may be on a threat, especially where grudges exist. Criminals’ activities will have received a significant boost if euthanasia is made legal. Criminals will be able to carry out murders in the hospitals and then hide behind euthanasia since the dead patient is no longer available for questioning. Therefore, the idea to legalize euthanasia should not be accepted. Also, the euthanasia poses a risk of turning hospitals into places of murder where business overcomes the position of humanity. Hospitals could take advantage of the acceptability of euthanasia to kill patients who appear more likely to die to pave the way for new patients. Also, relatives could use the excuse of euthanasia to kill patients who have stayed in the hospitals for long to cut on the costs associated with overstaying in hospitals. Generally, euthanasia could give an escape root for ill-intended individuals who may decide to use euthanasia as a reason for killing patients who may be helpless. Therefore, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia may not be easy to identify.
However, a positive argument in the debate about euthanasia could be based on the positive impacts of euthanasia. Individuals who support euthanasia believe that people should be allowed to control their lives, and freedom should be allowed when an individual decides to terminate their life (Young et al. 2019). The argument is based on the claim that unnecessary restrictions on the lives of human beings should be avoided and that people should be allowed to make decisions as long as the impacts do not affect third parties. For example, a patient who does not have a responsibility to take care of dependants could be allowed to terminate their lives when the pain of illness becomes unbearable, and the hope of recovering from the illness fades entirely. Additionally, the argument is based on the claim that human beings will still respect the right of life of the concerned patients and that euthanasia will only remain a voluntary choice where the doctor only aids in fulfilling the desire of the patient. Also, death is a private matter, and therefore, an individual should not be denied the wish to die as long as their death does not affect other people. The argument in support for euthanasia stands if euthanasia is a voluntary choice and that the rights of the involved individuals are respected.
The decision to go for euthanasia, however, appears to be an overrated choice. The current developments in the medical sector have seen the introduction of palliative care that gives the best option where the pain is the only facilitator for euthanasia. Palliative care involves the use of drugs that aim at relieving the patients from pain and giving a chance to enjoy a better life without necessarily healing the patient. The main objective of palliative care is to help patients to live their normal lives awaiting normal death where treatment has entirely failed. Therefore, palliative care does not affect the time that a patient takes before dying and therefore, the issue of moral acceptability is well addressed. However, pain may sometimes be more than physical, especially where the patient becomes depressed due to the knowledge that they are almost dying. Therefore palliative care involves mental support programs where patients are helped to deal with the mental issues to avoid accelerated deaths. Additionally, a patient under palliative care will be able to spend more quality time with relatives and will be in a position to do productive activities even if at reduced productivity. Although palliative care could appear costly, especially with the knowledge that the patients are dying anyway, moral acceptability is crucial, and cost should not be used as a basis for neglecting humanity.
A more complex argument in support of euthanasia is, however, based on human rights. The definition of human rights has been used variably by people who believe in different perspectives of human life. For example, the refusal of a professional officer to assist a client could be viewed as against a certain human right (Emanuel, 2017). The enjoyment of human rights is always limited to the extent of not interfering with the rights of other people. Euthanasia, therefore, comes as a right because a patient has decided to terminate their lives without affecting the systems of the hospitals as well as their families. A physician will, therefore, be acting against the freedom of the patient to end their suffering if the physician does not aid the patient. The patient is denied the right to terminate a life that is causing pain instead of happiness, as should be the case. Also, a patient could decide to go for euthanasia where the cost of treatment is going beyond reasonable levels, and the outcome of the illness has been predetermined as death. In the event of cost-cutting, several parties are denied their rights when euthanasia is illegalized. First, the patient could have a right to protect their family from unnecessary spending where death is certain. Therefore, denying such a patient the right to terminate their life is against their rights. Also, the family could be willing to cut unnecessary costs by paying for the treatment of a patient who is certain to die. Therefore, denying the family the opportunity to have their relative euthanized is against their right of choice. Therefore, Euthanasia should be allowed as a necessary way of cutting on costs where death is inevitable.
Religion plays a significant role in the debate about euthanasia. Most religions believe that life is sacredly given and that no human being is authorized to take away life. Also, the causes of pain and suffering receive a different definition when religion is included (Somerville, 2018). Generally, several religions are based on the belief that pain and suffering are spiritual and that death may not bring an end to suffering. Therefore, euthanasia is not given a chance in religion and any attempt to terminate a life is defined as murder. The argument does not consider the professional standards of medical officers, whereby the interests of the patients are given the primary consideration. Instead, religious physicians will not allow euthanasia as an option and will give hope to patients that the best choice is to remain alive because circumstances might change anytime. Therefore, religion has changed the perception held by several individuals concerning euthanasia, and society has also been transformed.
Supporters of euthanasia have not been short of arguments, and yet another argument comes up based on the beliefs of people. People always believe that death is a negative state and that death should not be picked as a solution for any problem. However, the notion of death could be put aside, and the positive side of death be considered. For example, death promises a full-time solution to suffering when an individual decides to accept euthanasia. The notion of death as the worst outcome of any situation that human beings face has led to the declaration of better solutions as morally unacceptable. Therefore, putting away the notion that death is the worst outcome of a situation could render all the arguments against euthanasia invalid. If the main objective in life is choosing the best option, then euthanasia could be the best option because the patient’s will is respected.
In sum, the arguments against euthanasia appear to receive counterarguments in support for euthanasia, deciding on whether euthanasia is acceptable could be a difficult task. Euthanasia could be a better solution than leaving a patient to keep suffering when death is certain. However, euthanasia could be used as an avenue for committing murder crimes. Euthanasia should not be preferred where palliative care is available. However, the cost of offering palliative care is significantly high, and families are exposed to high financial burdens. Generally, the arguments against euthanasia are based on society’s view of euthanasia and religion has significantly changed the perspective of euthanasia. Finally, euthanasia should only be allowed for some instances and measures should be in place to avoid mishaps in the process.
References
Emanuel, E. (2017). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: focus on the data. The Medical Journal of Australia, 206(8), 1-2e1.
Johnson, C. (2017). Euthanasia debate important, vexed and difficult. Australian Medicine, 29(21), 9.
Somerville, M. (2018). The media’s failure to report on religious voices in the public square: The euthanasia debate as a test case. University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review, 20, 1.
Young, J., Egan, R., Walker, S., Graham-DeMello, A., & Jackson, C. (2019). The euthanasia debate: synthesising the evidence on New Zealander’s attitudes. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(1), 1-21.