Introduction
Euthanasia has always been a moral issue because it is situated on the boundary between religion and science. According to the Bible and the clergy, people must not intervene with God as He is the only rightful one to take away the lives of the people. They also imposed that people should believe in miracle, and who knows when a people in near-death might be saved (Lasley). However, reality still struck most of the time. As an observer, or as a relative, is it right to let the hopelessly sick person to continue his suffering against an incurable disease? Euthanasia will be able to alleviate all the pain and let the person die in peace and comfort.
Euthanasia is not killing.
This premise is considered to be inductive reasoning. It is because this premise can be derived to the reasoning that choosing to die is not killing, as one can prevent dying if he or she wanted to do so. Furthermore, euthanasia is not a forced option; it will not be done unless the patient agrees to do so. As such, it can be inferred that euthanasia is not an act of killing.
Euthanasia does not solely meant killing; it is a matter of choice, and that choice depends on the patients themselves. Consider an instance wherein the patient cannot communicate with the physicians. If a patient is able to communicate, then the relatives, especially the parents, spouse and the children must be able to determine what the patient really wanted to do because they are the ones who know the patient thoroughly. They must understand what the patient truly needs, and therefore, they are able to give to the patient the suitable choice. Furthermore, it is implied in the law that every person should be given the freedom regardless of status in life (Morris v. New Mexico 2-3). This is especially true if the patient still has a concrete mind and consciousness; thus, if the patient chooses to end the suffering through euthanasia, then the wish must be granted. However, there are some claims that the principles of morality and ethics will be violated once euthanasia commences. Those principles must be considered first, and regardless of the condition of the patient, he or she must conform on how the society will react on his or her decision. However, this is not essentially true: Choosing whether to live or to end one’s own life is considered as an ultimate personal matter, and once the patient has become decided, then he must not be intervened (Morris v. New Mexico 5). Therefore, if it is the case, the principles and issues of morality should not be the top priority in such situation. The more important thing is to comply with the needs of the patient; because if the patient dies without peace and satisfaction, the principles and moral values do not matter anymore. Therefore, euthanasia is a matter of circumstance, and people must understand the situation that the patient is in.
Euthanasia allows a better future for the loved ones in the long run.
This can be considered as a form of deductive reasoning, because this statement can be inferred from practical reasoning involving financial capabilities. Since life supports are expensive, but do not guarantee survival, the resources can be considered to be used in vain. However, if those resources are made to be used to support the needs of the loved ones of the patients, then their future will not be compromised. As such, it can be concluded that euthanasia will allow a better future for the loved ones if the patients are determined to expect death at an earlier time, and that the patient has agreed upon euthanasia.
In the provision of health care, costs are always entailed. Therefore, even if the medical treatment is free of charge, people will not be prevented to pay for other expenses such as maintenance of other needs aside from the medical treatment such as food, clothing, and sanitary needs. As a matter of fact, statistics showed that more thousands of Americans have no access to medical insurance, which makes the situation worse (Porter Country Right to Life). This means that expensive medicines such as pain control cannot be accessed, especially by the unfortunate people. Also, the recent trend in medicine and health care management encourages doctors and physicians not to provide patient care for those who are unable to pay medical expenses (Porter Country Right to Life). If this is the case, then their current practices are acceptable in the field, and the doctors and physicians have their own needs to be satisfied. They have to comply with the regulations, even if they wanted to help, for the sake of providing their personal needs. Therefore, unfortunate people will be at a disadvantage in terms of expenses and maintenance of the needs of the patients. With euthanasia, they will be given another option to save the expenses for the medical needs especially if the patient chooses to cut the life support. It might not be the best choice, but if the patients will face an expected death, then the costs allocated for them should be allocated for other important expenses, especially if they have families who also needs to sustain their everyday lives (Porter Country Right to Life). Also, the other benefits provided by sponsors should be given to the beneficiaries instead. In this way, the patient who chooses to die for the sake of others will be able to exit life with contentment, as the expenses will be allocated to other important matters which will save more lives. If the relatives are involved, then the patients will be more willing to comply. However, society has a notion that such actions only imply that the relatives gives less importance to the patients, especially in their emotional attachment to them. However, it must be noted that this only applies when the patient agrees to cut the life support. If the patients themselves have already complied, therefore, it is better to be practical and to have a more meaningful death, than having them die despite of all the life supports provided to them, while those that they will left will have to suffer because the sources that must be allocated for daily expenses are already exhausted in providing life supports which are still unable to sustain the life of the patient.
Euthanasia is a responsible act.
This is considered as deductive reasoning because it is concluded based from two separate premises. First is that euthanasia seeks the consent of the patient or the loved ones first before being done, which means that the doctors are not in the right position to decide upon themselves. Second, informed consent entails a responsible act as it follows the ethical standards. Therefore, it can be said that euthanasia is a responsible act because it satisfied the ethical standard of informed consent.
Allowing euthanasia does not mean that everyone is qualified for doing the act. It will be only done when the situation needed to. That is when a patient has suffered enough and all that is left for him to live is the life support apparatuses. Related to the previous point that euthanasia is a matter of choice, the patient is the only one who truly knows his situation, and with the go-signal from the doctor, euthanasia can be initiated. This is the main point of the argument: that the doctor is involved in the decision, and euthanasia will only be considered when deemed necessary. Therefore, there is nothing wrong about euthanasia. It is made sure that the act is not easily accessible, and strict compliance will be implemented. As long as the physicians, the relatives, and the patients are responsible enough, then euthanasia will never be an issue. This is because it is also responsible in a way that the patients and relatives should make a critical decision regarding this matter, and whatever the decisions they will arrive, the act is more of a responsibility than issues of morality. However, other people contrasted this claim, saying that killing will never be a responsible act, and that life should the most important thing to be preserved; thus, a violation of moral values. However, there are five conditions that need to be followed before euthanasia commenced, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy: (1) the disease is terminal; (2) shortened life expectancy; (3) sole dependence on life-supporting apparatuses; (4) euthanasia can be committed without assistance, and; (5) medical permission to commence euthanasia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy). Therefore, if these standards will be met accordingly, then there will be no more violations of either the rights or the moral principles.
Values are not compromised.
It is considered to be inductive reasoning because euthanasia, as stated before is a responsible decision agreed upon by both the doctors and the patient. Since the responsibility is not compromised, then it can be implied that no moral acts are violated, as well as the ethical standards. Based from this, it can be generalized that no values are compromised when euthanasia is initiated.
According to religious beliefs, the act of killing is a sinful act, and that includes euthanasia. The Catholic Church has identified that euthanasia and assisted suicide are acts of killing, therefore a violation of religious principles (BBC). However, this does not mean that the morality of people is compromised. Like the other issues concerning the legalization and the encouragement of the use of contraceptives, it is only the church which is highly affected of the act. Furthermore, several people already practiced euthanasia, but their choice is not questionable when the church is not involved. However, if one is faced with a situation wherein he cannot even see for himself the condition of his loved ones, is it not yet the time to end the suffering and pain? Most of the time, people are confused in choosing between the opposite sides, but in such a situation, does letting the patient suffer longer can still be considered moral if one had already expected the outcome? Is it more important to consider doing the action based on what the eyes had actuality seen?
Conclusion
Euthanasia must be encouraged especially in dealing with people with terminal diseases. It is not that people are encouraged to do euthanasia, but as people who directly perceive things, dealing with the actual situation is the most important, and the principles should only come after. After all, the main goal is to end the suffering of terminally-ill people, and not to remind them with what morality is.
Works Cited
BBC. "Euthanasia and Assisted Dying." BBC-Religions. 2009. Web. 2 May 2016.
Donald, Lasley. "Critical Issues: Euthanasia." Critical Issues: Euthanasia. 2001. Web. 01 May 2016.
"Euthanasia." Porter County Right to Life - Euthanasia. 2006. Web. 01 May 2016.
Morris v. New Mexico. 1-14. Bernalillo County. 13 Jan. 2014. Print.
"Voluntary Euthanasia." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Association for Computing Machinery Publications, 2003. Print.
