The literal meaning of euthanasia is good health. Euthanasia is commonly defined as a quick and painless death of a person. It is a deliberation of an intervening act or practice with the intention to end a life, to relieve suffering in a simple manner. One of the classified categories of euthanasia is the active euthanasia. The perception of active euthanasia is the termination of the life of a person done by physicians by means of a lethal dose of medication; it is to kill the patient in response to his request. However, there are lot of issues in the ethics of the patient and the physician; the controversial issue in medical ethics. Some people argued about the moral justification of active euthanasia; life is sacred and any human life under a particular condition is a murder. A better understanding is necessary to view the issue on active euthanasia as morally justifiable, with a rational reflection on its issue, and point out in depth reasons of the importance of the practice of active euthanasia.
There are several reasons to say that active euthanasia is morally justifiable. The most significant reason for the moral justification of the practice is freedom of self – determination. Self – determination implies that a person or an adult has the competence and tolerance to make a significant decision that concerns his life. The personal and moral advantages in the preservation of the freedom of self – determination prevail over any legal or moral disagreement that prohibits the freedom or prohibits active euthanasia. For example, the terminal sedation is permitted legally. Terminal sedation is to administer large oral doses of barbiturates that induced coma. It is followed by neuromuscular agents that blocked in the system that caused the death of the patient as requested to hasten his death; the death is already foreseen, however, it is not an intention. The patient has taken the first move actively and it requires the intervening act of the physician. The decision of the patient is his freedom of self – determination and he is given the value of his life. If this freedom is destroyed, it means that the life of the patient is undermined largely. A person should exercise his freedom of self – determination over the most aspects of his life and that includes death.
Another reason that active euthanasia is morally justifiable is that it relieves suffering and increases the well – being of the person in general. The physical and mental agony of the patient is bypassed with a quick and painless death. It implies that it is moral to put the control over the moment of the death of the patient in his own hands. Consequently, allow him to have control over his dignity and well – being. In view to some objections, some argued that active euthanasia is not morally justifiable since it involves two people; the patient and the physician, as the patient would ask the physician to kill him is morally unacceptable. However, it is moral for a patient to request active euthanasia if the physician is an advocate. In addition, the important matter on this case is that the patient has a proper physical and mental status of his decision as viewed by the physician itself. The fact that every physician differs to what is the patient’s physical and mental status to allow the request for active euthanasia, still the reason of such is not valid enough to destroy the freedom of self – determination or prohibit active euthanasia.
Other objections arise against active euthanasia; its forever changes in the basis of medical profession through weakening the care commitment for the dying patient, corrode the development of the right to treatment refusal, change the perception and attitude of the society and abuse of the law. Active euthanasia would not create conflict with the physicians’ intentions, however, it provide the physicians another passage to improve the freedom and well – being of the patients. The reputations of physicians remain integral and boost their confidence as they carry – out the requests of the patients. Active euthanasia strengthened the right of refusal of any treatment since the providers of the health care satisfy the request of patients considerably. It is not appropriate to an assumption that people in the society who suffered pain and agony would not prefer to consider an option for active euthanasia. The decision of a patient is somewhat a personal matter and there are factors for a patient to consider active euthanasia as an option to end his life as to suffer the pain and agony he experienced.
Active euthanasia is morally justifiable; its basis is the freedom of self – determination and the well – being of a person as important aspects that precede its moral acceptance of any disagreements thereof. Active euthanasia would not possibly decline or decrease the medical care, corrosion of the right of refusal of treatment, changes of attitudes of the society, and any abuse of the law as implemented. The practice of active euthanasia has positive and good intentions to uphold the spirit of the people and it is an advantage to the society.
Works Cited
Bogaert, Louis-Jacques van. "Voluntary Active Euthanasia: The Debate." Fellow of the Centre
for Applied Ethics (2011): 1-17.
Kappel, Klemens. "The Morality of Euthanasia." Academia (2001): 1-31.
Levin, Martin. "Physician - Assisted Suicide: Legality and Morality." Professional Corporation
(2002): 1-17.
