Euthenasia
Essay Preview: Euthenasia
Report this essay
Euthanasia, often called mercy killing, is the practice of a medical physician painlessly putting to death a person with a terminal, painful, or distressing disease or handicap. A distinction is made between positive and negative euthanasia. Positive refers to an action taken to end the life of a person, while negative suggests the withholding of medical procedures or treatments from a patient that would be necessary in order for the patient to survive. This issue has grabbed the attention of the nation since the assisted suicides performed by Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Does a doctor have the right to “play God” and end the life of a patient who is requesting to die? As Americans living in a free country, the choice to end the suffering of a patient for whom death is inevitable is important. A person who is suffering and lying on his deathbed waiting to die has the right to put an end to the misery. Since euthanasia permits the patient a right to die with dignity, relieves the stress of escalating costs of medical costs for the dying, and allows human nature to take its course. The legislation should be changed in order to legally examine and accept cases of euthanasia.
The basic reason for the legalization of euthanasia is that a person has the right to die with dignity. Humans with sound minds should be allowed to control their own lives and deaths. A person with a sound mind can make rational decisions based upon knowledge that is acquired over his or her lifetime. If the patient is unable to make decisions for certain unforseen reasons, such as mental retardation, comatose, or brain damage, the family should discuss the issue with the physician to see what the best possible option may be for the patient. If there is not a family member to make the decision for the patient, the decision should be left to the doctor or a team of doctors to find the best suitable resolution for the patient. Since some would argue that the legalization of euthanasia could result in the possibility of abuse of the procedure, a strict legal process must be enforced and carefully regulated in each specific case so that the opportunity for abuse would be exceptionally minimized.
A patient with sound mind should not be forced to live if he or she thinks that the continuation of life is meaningless. If doctors cannot do much more to help the illness and/or the pain is unbearable, the person should have the right to decide if he wants to continue to live or to peacefully end the suffering and die. No one wants to be confined to a hospital bed while hooked up to machines and tubes that are keeping him alive. After days, months, or even years of having little hope of ever leaving the room healthy, a patient who is wasting away or becoming a “vegetable” should be able to put the torment to an end. Others should respect individual dignity in life and in death. From birth, children are taught to respect the worth of others and their opinions or choices. If we respect the right to live with dignity, a person should not be denied the right to die with dignity.
As patients, especially the terminally ill, continue to endure the treatments they are given, their dignity is being destroyed as they live longer and longer as their human state deteriorates. In some cases, “death is better than dying,” due to the pain the person may undergo until he or she finally dies (Larue, 1998, p. 153). Instead of torturing the patient that would rather die than live in torment by keeping him alive, a doctor should be able to assist the special request. Some might argue that euthanasia would lead to an increased fear of hospitals and doctors, since the doctors seem to have control over the diagnosis of illnesses and may influence the decision of the patient. Also they may say that the suffering of a patient is better than the loss of a life. However, when the patient is in an unbearable situation and the period of suffering can be shortened, the patient deserves to explore his options (including euthanasia), with the medical advice of physicians who have been through many years of schooling and are trained to be experts in health care.
The economic concern about the increasing costs of medication and health care influence the argument for euthanasia. As people with lethal illnesses continue to live and undergo multiple medications and extensive therapy, the bills continually add up, either for the patient or for the government and taxpayers. The stress of the bills along with the anxiety concerning the illness, treatment, and side effects of medication compiles and can be more traumatic to the patient than death. Many of the costly medications are experimental drugs that are not proven to work and may not even help the illness or the pain associated with it. Euthanasia, an inexpensive service, would eliminate the unneeded costs of the suffering patient who would rather pass away than continue to undergo the harsh costly treatment of an incurable disease (Scherer & Simon, 1999, p. 86-89).
A major opposition to euthanasia is the argument that it is unethical that doctors are playing God by deciding when to end the life of an individual. Many religious groups strongly dispute the idea that euthanasia is actually a doctor and his patient allowing human nature to take its course on the human body (Yount, 2000, p. 146-148). Is the medical profession ultimately concerned with preserving life? Doctors and medication are supposed to help relieve the pain that patients are experiencing, not prolong it by keeping them alive. As technology has advanced, the medical field has greatly improved its services. Doctors are now able to keep people on life support, respirators, feeding tubes, which ultimately keep patients alive when they should be dead. Instead