Medical treatment, as we all know, can help save lives. But Is there a medical treatment that will help people die? Although there is a lot of debate about it, doctors still use the procedure to help in the death of a patient. Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing. It is the method of ending a life to free a person from an incurable illness or intolerable suffering.
What exactly is euthanasia?
Euthanasia, also known as “Mercy Killing” and “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” It is a term used in medical ethics to describe interfering with a natural process to death. In other words, it accelerates the natural course of death in terminally ill patients when all treatments fail or become much too difficult for the patient to bear. In short, euthanasia is the intentional termination of human life to relieve unbearable pain.
Moral Issues of Euthanasia
The following are the moral issues of physician-assisted suicide:
1. Autonomy about the timing and manner of one’s death
It affects the impact of Assisted Suicide on those who participate in the suicide.
The main argument favoring euthanasia is that every responsible person should have decision-making power over him or herself.
Every person should be able to choose the time and manner of his or her death. A fundamental liberty interest should be:
- Experiencing the quality of life
- Avoiding extreme pain and suffering
- Maintaining dignity
- Having a sense of power
- Having others remember us
Proponents of assisted suicide argue that the right to autonomy, especially at the end of life, superior the claim that life must be preserved. Moreover, when a person’s condition is terminal, and death is imminent, the sacredness of life is greatly reduced.
It is nice for a person to be able to choose the time and manner of his or her death. But this decision must consider the effect it would have on others. Medical practitioners who assist with suicides will become immune to their natural prohibitions against ending another person’s life over time. This will undoubtedly impact how these physicians and others close to them view the importance of life preservation.
2. Death with Dignity
The second major argument favoring legalizing euthanasia is that people have the rights to die with dignity.
The last months of a person’s life should not be spent in severe physical pain, dependent on others for nutrition, hydration, and bodily hygiene, deteriorating physically and mentally, and experiencing a declining vision, hearing, and mobility. Family members, relatives, and friends do not have to witness a loved one’s decline and suffering. Our final thoughts about a loved one should be filled with joy and respect.
Clearly, the above point is valid and logical. The statement, though, has some serious shortcomings. First, the statement ignores the issues of human life sanctity and the many unintended effects of assisted suicide legalization. Second, the research and studies do not support the argument that people choose euthanasia because they are in extreme physical pain.
3. Utilitarian Reasoning
Another point advanced by proponents of assisted suicide is that the benefits outweigh the costs. Supporters contend that euthanasia helps terminally ill patients avoid needless suffering and pain in their final days. It allows a patient to have control over the timing and manner of death. And that it promotes death with dignity. At the end of life, an individual’s right to self-determination is honored.
On the other hand, the costs are that certain people may feel pressured to end their lives based on a misunderstanding of their diagnosis, depression, concern for the burden they put on others, and the loss of assets. Likewise, selfish family members or caregivers can put pressure on some people to end their lives. Proponents of euthanasia argue that the benefits outweigh the costs and that detailed policy, education, and monitoring can help reduce many of the potential negative consequences.
Moreover, supporters argue that the negative consequences are speculative, while the positive consequences are clear. Supporters argue that we do not punish deserving terminally ill patients just because we can imagine the worst-case situation.
4. Sanctity of Human Life
The sanctity of human life is one of the key reasons against euthanasia. According to this argument, each person’s body is made in the image of God. It is God’s property, and no one has the authority to destroy God’s property. Because God created life, only God has the right to take it. Suicide is a betrayal of God’s sacred trust of life. It is a rejection of God’s supremacy. Life should not be terminated or shortened for the sake of a patient’s comfort. There is no more or less sacred human life than another. Individual autonomy takes a back seat to the sanctity of human life.
5. Diagnosis and Prognosis Mistakes
Proponents of physician-assisted suicide contend that terminally ill patients who are competent and have fewer than six months to live should have the right to end their lives.
Also, assuming the legislation’s logic, advocates are assuming that physicians will be able to diagnose a patient’s condition and prognosis properly; determine if the patient is terminally ill; if the patient has less than six months to live; whether the patient is competent; whether the patient is acting under duress; and whether the patient’s pain and depression can be treated.
Proponents of Euthanasia contend that it should be legalized. This is because there is no difference between withdrawing life-sustaining medical care and prescribing a pill.
6. The end result is the same: a dignified and humane death
If this is a valid point, then it is equally valid to contend that there is no difference between giving someone a pill (physician-assisted suicide) and giving them an injection (Euthanasia). It is also logical that if we can prescribe medication or inject someone who has incurable pain who has a life expectancy of fewer than six months, we should be able to prescribe medication and inject someone who has incurable pain who would die within a year, five years, or ten years.
The Bottom Line
Individuals must accept the moral prohibition against killing themselves or others for humanity to flourish as an interdependent community of dignity and equality. If this is a moral order truth, it will be shown by the fruits of human experience. In the long run, the axioms “Truth is Wonderful” and “Will Prevail” are right. In the short run, moral errors and mistaken moral values can cause societal suffering and misery.
