For some time now, arguments and counter arguments have been proposed in the support and against euthanasia. Both passive and active euthanasia attract almost and equal share of the controversy. It is arguably a case that may require circumstantial decision-making since the situations leading to one to want to die are different. Is euthanasia whether passive or active right or wrong?
It is also argued that the right to die in the case of a terminally ill person ought to be respected at all time. The augment claims that the patient experiences and undergoes pain for a long time, and, therefore, considering all possible options available, the patient willfully requests to be assisted to die. The personal right of everyone to be free from pain does no stop even in sickness. It is possible for to claim that it is a constitutional right in many countries to ensure that the life of individuals is free from unnecessary pain. The contention hear is, whether the sick person is in the right mind, environment, and competent enough to make such a decisions. It is imperative that a sick person, especially those who might have undergone some brain damage cannot make rational decisions. From this premise, one wonders then how the decision from someone whose rationality is critically compromised can be respected. Accepting to assist the person to die claiming to respect the decisions; even when the person cannot make the right decision is like agreeing to push a child over cliff just because the child wants to fly, or at least thinks it is possible. The person taking such actions should be held responsible for the consequences of the actions, in this case murder.
Finally, it is argued that by allowing the person to die, either passively or actively, the persons shall stop using the available resources and make them available for others. Such argument is based on the minimum bed capacity in some hospitals if not the majority in the world. If one used a bed and the work force for long, and without any hope of ever recovering, it is expected that the person willfully releases the resources for the others to use by requesting to die. In addition to this, if the sick person request to die, the person reliefs the family the economic burden and makes their lives better. One would wonder what then resources are for; are they availed for others and not the ailing person? Such arguments are flawed and biased. When one expects a sick person to seek to terminate his or her life so that others, whose possibility of recovering may be uncertain, such expectations is immoral. On top of that, human life cannot, and should never be equated with material property. To do so is to demean human life. Of what value, in monitory terms does one think life can be? It is not possible to place this value and hence it is only good to prolong the life of the person using the available resources.
In conclusion, considering the arguments in support and against euthanasia, it is evidently clear that those against have the best interest on the principle of considering human life and morals grounds, and therefore, it is not good to assist a patient to die. However, in some circumstances, especially where the person requesting to die is rational enough, and is made to understand the consequences of his or her actions, the person maybe assisted to die, but that does not make it absolutely right since human decision, including that of the patient at that time is subjective.
Works cited
American Nurses Association (2013). Pdf. Accessed from http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/EthicsStandards/Ethics-Position- Statements/Euthanasia-Assisted-Suicide-and-Aid-in-Dying.pdf on November 25, 2014.
James Rachels. Active and Passive Euthanasia. 1975. Accessed from http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels.pdf on November 25, 2014
