Abstract
Euthanasia or Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is the act of relieving pain and suffering by giving terminally ill patients drugs that induce death. Pros of euthanasia include living wills, the Hippocratic Oath and the utility theory as well as the lowering of the cost of health care services. Living wills written by most individuals can deny them the right to extraordinary health care services which are aimed at prolonging their lives. However, it is important to note that a lot can change between when a will is written, and the time of death. Physicians are sworn by oath to protect human life at all cost while benefits associated with ending a human life could be varying relative to various parties. These same issues are, however, used by those who defend euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath has been changed on various occasions to suit the needs of medical practitioners. The issue is a controversial one and is faced by bias such as religion and the fear associated with death.
Euthanasia is the act of allowing one to die so as to relieve them of pain. It is also referred to as physician assisted suicide (PAS) . Terminally ill people argue that they have a right to end their life while physicians on the other hand have a moral obligation to keep their patients alive. Euthanasia is a huge concern in different settings of our societies as it experiences almost equal measure of proposing and opposing views on its application and soundness. We bring forth the topic of euthanasia in order to dig deep into a person’s self-conscience on whether it should be abolished or not. Human life is sacred and ought to be protected at whatever cost, and no individual should be given the right to take their own life or the life of others.
There are a number of cons of the procon.org website which strongly advise against legalizing euthanasia. Euthanasia is prone to bias and legalizing euthanasia or PAS is likely to subject the poor and the elderly towards euthanasia . The society is currently obsessed with the extremely high cost of health care services. The utility principle also sanctifies an act so along as the act derives pleasure for a majority of people, and any behavior which promotes pain or suffering is considered wrong. Ideally, euthanasia can only be authorized by the patient who is in pain. However, legalizing PAS will open a leeway to other forms of involuntary euthanasia. Viewing termination of life as beneficial will also raise the question as to why only a few individuals should be allowed to make the call as far as when the benefits will override the importance of the life of those who are terminally ill .
Secondly, by legalizing euthanasia, the medical practitioners will be violating their moral obligations to the society. According to the Hippocratic Oath, all medical practitioners are sworn against killing patients either by giving them deadly drugs, even when the patient personally requests for the drug . The fact that a patient has requested to be killed does not make the act of killing the patient right. The oath recognizes the purity, holiness and the mysteriousness of the human lie and the need to protect it.
Another con to legalizing euthanasia is that living willing fail to have the effect intended by the individuals, since they tend to be made by surrogates to these patients. Living wills are also different from wills which are written during life and death situations. Drafters of living wills, especially during death and life situations do not offer these individuals a chance to express their preferences accurately . Living wills may fail to reach those making decisions for the patients. Living wills also fail to ensure that the surrogates are able to identify the preferences of the individuals. These three Pros have been identified since they touch on all the major stakeholders affected by the issue; the society, medical practitioners and the patient.
The Procon.Org has also identified various pros are in support of PAS. A living will is a written document by an individual which clearly states one’s wishes in the case they become terminally ill. A will can be used by the state to deny a patient life prolonging and extraordinary medical care services.
Another pro is the fact that there is no substantial evidence to prove that legalizing euthanasia will open a leeway for direct euthanasia. Legalizing the euthanasia is also not an absolute decision that cannot be changed in the future. The possibility of the line being crossed is not enough to go on and deny the patients the right to end their suffering. Legalizing euthanasia does not necessarily allow for all kinds of immoral acts.
Finally, the Hippocratic Oath has been modified on various occasions to suit the needs of the health care sector. The basis of these modifications is to make these tenets more acceptable. One such tenet which was scrapped prevented women from practicing medicine. The provision to do no harm also raises the question as to whether by allowing the patient to suffer, harm is being done to the patient.
It is difficult to make a rigid stand pertaining the euthanasia since medical practitioners are expected to exhibit their excellence with their ability to take care of the patients. The common belief that death is painful also leads to emotions of fear which causes most patients and human beings wish to postpone death as long as possible. As a catholic, there are seven stages pertinent to the life of a devout catholic. Death is one of these stages and should be faced bravely. Another major bias is the factor that patients are the responsibility of the society and those close to them. In pain most people are vulnerable and should not be allowed to make any important decisions, especially those concerning death and life matters .
The believing game has not changed my take on euthanasia, but it has assisted me to see the situation from a different perspective. The line between life and death is thin and yet when crossed there is no coming back. Terminally ill patients are at the center of the entire debate and yet they are in no sane position to argue their case and be heard. Our take on various issues are likely to change drastically, especially when we are faced with a death or life situation on our hands.
In conclusion, patients should not be allowed to make decisions pertaining their life, especially one that allows them to take their own life. Life is holy, pure and mysterious and no benefit to the individual or the society should surpass this importance. Various factors in the environment are likely to influence such a decision and there is no measure that can accurately come up with a right decision at the very moment when the PAS is administered. The act is irreversible and cannot be taken back.
References
Dworkin, G., Gillespie Frey, R., & Bok, S. (1998). Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Procon.org. (2016). Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? Retrieved from Procon.org: http://euthanasia.procon.org/
Zamir, E. (2015). Law, psychology, and morality : the role of loss aversion. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
