Introduction
Euthanasia refers to the termination of a patient’s life for the sake of mercy. Euthanasia raises several ethical concerns about the value of life as well as the measures that healthcare facilities and governments need to undertake to protect and uphold it (Weir, 1998). Countries fear to legalize euthanasia because of the ethical concerns about the sanctity of life. Furthermore, the general notion by many countries is that legalizing voluntary euthanasia would automatically lead to the legalization of involuntary euthanasia (Saaty and Vargas, 2012). There are many divergent outlooks concerning upholding life, and many individuals are of the view that euthanasia violates the goals and objectives of the medical profession since it affects the doctor and patient relationship (Saaty and Vargas, 2012). While pro-life activists condemn euthanasia, other individuals believe that it is acceptable under severe conditions. Ideally, euthanasia is an ethical issue because it raises significant ethical dilemmas.
Background of the Ethical Issue
As mentioned above, euthanasia is a term that medical personnel use to describe an action that results in ending the life of a patient to relieve them from pain and suffering. According to Saaty and Vargas (2012), there are two categories of euthanasia, and they include voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia or active and passive euthanasia. Saaty and Vargas (2012) suggest that active euthanasia is the situation whereby a medical practitioner actively undertakes a procedure that leads to the death of a patient such as giving the patient a lethal dose of medication that would end his or her life. The first one is based on the method and procedure used to perform it that is positive/active and negative/passive euthanasia and the second is based on the consent of the patient and these includes voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia (Saaty and Vargas, 2012). As for positive/active euthanasia, a medical professional assists the patient to die. For instance, they can shoot a lethal injection in their body. As for negative/passive euthanasia, the medical professional stops any intervention that may prevent the patient from dying, for example, they may stop the life support apparatus from sustaining the patient’s life. Voluntary euthanasia is widely performed at the request of the patient (Saaty and Vargas, 2012). On the other hand, non-voluntary euthanasia is undertaken on patients who are incompetent because they are too young or too senile to make the decision. Involuntary euthanasia is one that is done against the wish of the patient. The fact that there are varied forms of euthanasia generates debate for the support or opposition of some forms of the act. For instance, individuals are more likely to support voluntary euthanasia as opposed to involuntary because the patient permits it (Weir, 1998).
Euthanasia and assisted suicide remain illegal in many nations across the globe. In Holland, for example, due to the outcomes of various court cases, physicians that kill patients directly or those who help patients to kill themselves are not persecuted as long as the follow certain stipulations (Otlowski, 1997). For instance, any case of euthanasia must be reported to the local prosecutor and the patient’s death must be thoroughly considered in more than one occasion. Therefore, Holland is largely viewed as a model of how well doctor-aided and voluntary euthanasia, for chronically ill patients, can work without being abused (Saaty and Vargas, 2012).
Arguments for Euthanasia
Those in support of euthanasia argue that it is permissible when the patient has no prospect of recovery if the patient is experiencing intense pain, and when the patient asks for it. While pro-life activist may argue for the sanctity of human life and assert that human life is the most important aspect that should be preserved and respected at all times, euthanasia does not involve the process of discontinuing people’s life aimlessly (Saaty and Vargas, 2012). Instead, it involves a process of considering the implications that a patient’s life of death will have to their family members and themselves. For the right reasons, euthanasia is ethical. The moral considerations that justify euthanasia include the principle of non-maleficent or act of mercy, which underlines that individuals have the moral obligation of ensuring that other people do not undergo extreme suffering when they can help them get out of it (Otlowski, 1997). The second moral consideration is that people have a right to their life. If an individual firmly believes that it is unreasonable to continue living, that person has the right to terminate their life. Such an argument bases on the notion that it is the quality and not the quantity of life that matters. The third consideration is that euthanasia is the honorable exit from pain and suffering (Saaty and Vargas, 2012).
In some circumstances, it would be morally permissible and preferable to employ active euthanasia on an incompetent patient. For instance, it is ideal when the family is experiencing emotional and monetary struggles (Weir, 1998). Euthanasia is cost-effective in many ways. For example; it saves on hospital space, drugs, and fluids; it gives physicians time to attend to other available cases; and it is economical for members of the family who are left behind. Active euthanasia is morally preferable because it is considered a better option if family members are helpless, yet, their relative is suffering (Saaty and Vargas, 2012). The quality of life has a significant bearing on the moral relevance as well as the decision regarding whether to uphold or withdraw life. Ideally, euthanasia infringes on the physician’s professional and ethical code to protect life, but individuals must also consider that there are situations and conditions that physicians cannot address (Otlowski, 1997). As a result, both physicians and family members may have to accept euthanasia as a means of discontinuing hopeless situations. For instance, patients that have been in a coma for many years, old and senile patients with no hope of recovering and brain-dead patients may be subject to euthanasia because prolonging their life does not benefit them in any way (Saaty and Vargas, 2012).
Research also suggests that newly born babies that are severely impaired may be subject to non-voluntary euthanasia because they are too young to make the decision for themselves. According to Weir (1998), arguments that may justify the act of prolonging the life of a severely impaired newborn are the hope that scientists may find a cure in the future. Moreover, some people maintain that medicine is not an exact science, and there may be mistakes in medical diagnosis while other argues that people should understand that joy and suffering are part of life. However, the moral argument in support of non-voluntary euthanasia for severely disabled newborns is that people should not allow children to undergo pain and suffering that is preventable (Otlowski, 1997).
Arguments against Euthanasia
Even though there are some benefits or advantages associated to legalizing euthanasia, some individuals are opposed to the idea. Primarily, people who oppose euthanasia argue that life is sacred; therefore, no human being should possess the ability to decide whether to end the life of another human being or not. Such individuals hold that human life is a basic good and gift from God. As a result, it should be accorded utmost respect, and that all human life is to be respected, irrespective of its condition (Saaty and Vargas, 2012).
Furthermore, individuals that oppose the legalization of euthanasia argue that such a move would set the medical field on a slippery slope that may not bode well for the human race in general (Weir, 1998). Specifically, when euthanasia is legalized, it is obvious that the doctors will have the discretion of deciding whether to end a patient’s life; therefore, the doctors will wield excessive power over their patients’ lives, and they may abuse them. Besides, some patients may choose the easier options of ending patients’ lives instead of striving to save them (Otlowski, 1997).
Conclusion
In sum, mercy killing is a very contentious ethical issue in many nations across the globe. Specifically, euthanasia entails the termination of a patient’s life to save them from pain and suffering. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because it entails the process of taking the life of another human being, which is against the law. Furthermore, it violates a person’s right to live. Individuals who support the legalization of euthanasia argue that it is permissible when the patient has no prospect of recovery if the patient is experiencing extreme pain, and when the patient asks for it. On the other hand, individuals that oppose the legalization of euthanasia firmly believe that life is sacred; therefore, no individual should have the right or ability to decide whether to end the life of another human being or not. Furthermore, they suggest that such legalization will be prone to abuse and misuse, as some individuals, as well as medical practitioners, will use it as a leeway of ending lives that can be saved.
Work CitedOtlowski, M. (1997). Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law. London: Oxford University Press.
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Legalization of Euthanasia. In Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (pp. 249-262). New York: Springer Press.
Weir, R. (1998). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (For and Against). Indiana: Indiana University Press.
