Death or dying is not a bad thing because it is part and parcel of life just like other rites of passage. If it was to be a personal choice many could have opted to live and not die because they do not know how it feels on the other side of existence. Life is valuable, and it is for that reason that voluntary euthanasia has become a debatable issue in determining whether it is right or wrong. But it is important to understand it from the onset so as to know when and how it can be termed as the best option out of a live or die situation. Voluntary euthanasia allows the patient to make a voluntary request to be aided in dying. The realities of death are painful especially when is suffering from ill health; it is for that reason that self-euthanasia should be morally permissible. According to Pieter Admiraal, some will take advantage of the legalization of euthanasia might lead to disaster “where patients will be killed against their will” (Kuhse & Singer, ). But truth be told, it will be harsh to assume that only negative things will arise from this worthy cause. For terminally ill adults of able mind or children and their legal consenters, self-euthanasia is morally permissible as it offers said party dignity and it is ethical given the infrastructures administering the act operate in adherence to proper regulation.
Voluntary self-euthanasia is ethically and morally right when one chooses to end their lives in a painless manner so as to bring an end to their pain and suffering. It is the right if an individual to choose the right thing to do for their lives and enjoy their democratic spaces just like John Stuart Mills intended. Democracy entails the intent to exercise power over one’s life as long as the rest of the society is not affected by their actions. Any civilized society is expected to allow people to do as they please and introducing a moral or ethical dimension into it is not in any way right. In the same way, it can be argued that a terminally ill patient who is in immense pain and desires euthanasia should be allowed to decide to end their lives because after all they are not physically harming others. It has never been proved that voluntary euthanasia is flawed or wrong and, therefore, anyone should be allowed to end their lives when it is appropriate.
Those who are severely ill and in great pain are often representing pain to not only themselves but to the rest of the society. According to Plato, those who are severely ill should not be given treatment to prolong their lives. And his views are relevant to this voluntary euthanasia argument because, at the very end of the day, they will have to suffer from prolonged pain that could have ended by a mere decision to allow physicians to end their lives. It is not worth the effort and pain, to have a patient in constant pain and suffering live in that pain for a long time knowing they will not get better and will die in the end. Most of the terminally ill patients reconcile themselves to the fact that they will not get better and that they will die eventually. Theirs is a decision to bring their death closer than it was intended by the creator for them to die from natural causes.
It is only right that an individual is allowed to make decisions over their lives and have the discretion to end their lives when it is right. The Stoics had their say in this argument and according to Seneca, choosing to end one’s life is good because stopping them from doing so is like shutting them from the path of freedom. The only thing that humanity should ensure that is not tampered with is the entry into life because that is definite. It is improper to have to look into the eye of a terminally ill patient who is suffering from pain and assure them that everything will be alright when nothing will. besides the caregivers sometimes suffer in silence while looking forward to a day their loved ones will die and not suffer any more (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012 )The fact remains that without the right medicine to heal them, they will die. It is not right to let them live through their pain when they have decided they have had enough.
Voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible if its benefits outweigh the loss society is to suffer. It is not debatable that the affected individual will benefit just like society will and according to philosophers like Hume, suicide is acceptable if the life of an individual is plagued by suffering. Everyone is expected to live with dignity, and they should also be allowed to die with dignity if it is possible (Oregon.gov, 2016). That is especially true because people should not be forced to endure degrading life situations in their lives all because they should live up to the end of their lives and die of natural causes. It is good to stop for a minute and think about the end- of- life situations terminally ill patients have to endure, they lose control of their bodies and are left to the mercies of their caregivers. The best society can do is to help reduce indignities through voluntary euthanasia.
Terminally ill patients often find themselves in situations that are riddled with a lot of pain that their families and friends remain the most affected. Those who are close to them sometimes get overwhelmed by their pain and suffering and sometimes if necessary they wish for them to die and rest. Their very actions are incidents of merciful feelings stem from suffering from deep inside within them. Showing mercy means the world feels their pain and only wishes that it could be over someday, and that day might come as soon as anyone would like if only physician-assisted suicide is used as the fastest intervention. It is the role of society to enable its members to lead a life that is fulfilling, but there are things that are beyond humanity such as sickness and death, and nothing much can be done if situations get out of hand. It is not enough that patients be induced into states of unconsciousness all in the name of helping relieve pain when there is the option of euthanasia (Pereira, 2011). Thus, everyone should be allowed to decide whether they can die when they feel their lives are not fulfilling in as far as pain and sickness associated with terminal illnesses are concerned.
Those who are against euthanasia believe that by legalizing it, society will be compromising with the sanctity of life because no human being is allowed to end another’s life under any circumstance. They say it will be hard to draw the line between the deserving cases of euthanasia and intentional murder of those who are thought not to be desirable. Euthanasia might not serve the best interests of patients all the time and might end up serving the interests of others who might be all too willing to have someone die because their stand to benefit from their deaths (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). It might be difficult to regulate euthanasia properly because conspiracies might emerge on whom and how some people were accorded the chance to choose to end their lives. Physicians might take it upon themselves to influence patients to end their lives not because they are so sick they cannot live another day, but because the physicians might not be interested in serving the interests of the patients and families. Controversies amount when it comes to deciding the moral way of handling euthanasia because some people might be given too many powers over others while others might bow to moral pressure from selfish family members and medical resources.
Even so, sometimes it is important to put the interests of the patients first before those of family and the physicians involved. One might be allowed to live on but endure more suffering and pain that might be hurtful to their caregivers. Terminally ill adults of able mind are in a good position to decide what is good for them, children and their legal consenters too are better placed to weigh out the options and come up with decisions that serve the interests of the patients. It is only right that proper legislation is put in place for the sole purpose of offering guidance on how to go about euthanasia in the right way (Pereira, 2011). It is only prudent to allow patients die in dignity by allowing them to control the timing of their deaths.
Euthanasia is very controversial and morally difficult issue to tackle in a world where people have diverse belief systems that favor or rejects it. However, if it is an option offered to a patient as a way out of their pain and suffering, then it remains viable and the most logical way of dealing with the issue of terminal illness. When a person has reconciled themselves to the fact that they will die eventually, then it serves them right if they are to be given a chance to determine the course of their lives. The principle of autonomy becomes the most relevant in such situations because they know and understand their pain and suffering more than anyone (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). It is wrong if an eternal person decides what is good or bad for them, as seen through those who oppose euthanasia. It is the responsibility of anyone to determine what is good for them as long as their actions affect the directly and does not impose physical pain on someone else. Their families and friends might not want to subject to emotional pain by the passing on of their loved ones, but when all factors are held constant it is good to let someone choose when to die when they are suffering from an illness that they are less likely to recover.
References
Kuhse, H. & Singer, P. (2006). Bioethics. 2/e. Malden: Blackwell
Math, S. B. & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: Right to Life vs. Right to Die. India Journal of Medical Research. Web. December 2012. Retrieved on 24th march 2016 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/
Oregon.gov. Death with Dignity Act. Oregon Health Authority. Web. 24th March 2016 http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/D athwithDignityAct/Pages/index.aspx
Pereira, J. (2011). Lagalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls. Current Oncology. Web. Retrieved on 24th March 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/
