Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Euthanasia
We all appear to have a different judgment of what a “good death” means. Euthanasia is a concept stemming from various concepts of death and how death should actually occur. Euthanasia is a phrase used to define an action taken deliberately by a physician to intentionally terminate the life of an individual. Medical euthanasia roots have been traced to Greek and Roman culture, which held beliefs that people, should die peacefully and happily given the choice (Strinic, 13). Individuals chose to end their life at a certain age with consent from the community as part of the happy death ritual. The ritual was meant to avoid old age life, which is typical for weakness, senility, illness, and vulnerability. Euthanasia takes the form of voluntary euthanasia in a case where the physician receives consent to end the life of the patient or non-voluntary euthanasia where the patient cannot make the decisions because they are unconscious or unable to talk, leaving another person to make the decision for them. There has been great controversy on whether Euthanasia should be legalized or not, causes of dilemma being the need to maintain autonomy on individual life while at the same time secure the integrity of life. The topic is an important area of research given that patients continue to suffer extremely in hospitals with morality and ethical standards dismissing the practice of Euthanasia as a form of good death. Readers should care to read about the issue of euthanasia in order to develop a rational meaning for the practice in case of future encounters with related situations. There are calamities in life against which palliative care cannot provide solutions, making it necessary to legalize Euthanasia as an alternative to end misery and humiliation in the face of inevitable death.
Euthanasia is a necessary process to end suffering
According to Köneke (86), not all moral issues have similar moral weight as Euthanasia. It is a legitimate opinion to affirm that Euthanasia allows patients to pass away in dignity in a situation when life is devoid of it. Research has termed this as a form of good death that forms a compassionate solution to human suffering and disaster. The role of primary care is to provide treatment or generally improve the quality of life of a patient through improved physiological, social, emotional and spiritual matters. Unfortunately, palliative care does not respond to everyone, leaving a significant amount of individuals in excruciating pain. At this point, issues surrounding morality of the physical and psychological suffering by the patients faced with imminent death crop up. Supporters of Euthanasia believe that at this point, it is only fair to relieve the patient off their immense suffering by administering Euthanasia.
According to Francis Bacon, medicine is a science and art that requires physicians to help a patient improve quality of life in all the possible ways but also an art in the sense that the physicians have to creatively develop rational solutions for some situations (Köneke, 87). Euthanasia is therefore a form of medical help designed to help patients into painless and peaceful deaths. According to Strinic (9), 87% cases of Euthanasia cases usually shorten life by a month or less usually an option by patients who would rather die than go through another minute of agonizing pain.
According to Kuře (5), prominent philosophers such as Plato and the stoics supported the idea of Euthanasia for incurable patients who took up large portions of community resources even when death was inevitable. Plato argues that if life is indeed sacred then one should not be exposed to the shame of too much suffering, poverty, irreversible disgrace and disastrous terminal illness when there is an option to escape. The Stoics also developed a concept of good death based on the fact that one should die in an honest, serene and courageous way when the unavoidable instance of death comes knocking. The stoic concept states that
If someone finds oneself in a situation of enormous suffering, then it corresponds more to human dignity and nobility to abandon such a situation, even if the price of departure entails one’s own life (Kuře, 8).
Euthanasia takes a lot of courage and composure while allowing the patient to die a peaceful death, which is a good death according to Stoical concept. Voluntary death to some philosophers is therefore considered a rationalized expression of the definition of life given that the legitimate reasons for euthanasia lead a reasonable and rational individual into death when faced with terminal illness, extreme pain and humiliation.
According to Köneke (86), patients with terminal illnesses characterized by immense suffering become a burden to the community and given that society may not have the capacity to bear such huge burden, the patient will face death indirectly in a process called social euthanasia. The individual becomes a burden to themselves and the society at large since they cannot go about their normal business; they have to depend on the society for everything else while all in all waiting for the fullness of death (Strinic, 14). Society gives up hope on an individual since they expect them to die anyway, therefore feeling the unnecessary burden of bearing with financial or physical requirements of the patient. The individual has partially faced death as every passing minute brings them closer to the ultimate shut down. It is only appropriate for society to let go of such a patient who has already suffered an indirect death with cut social ties. Euthanasia in such cases is in the best interest of society. According to this concept of death, a good death is one where community benefits outweigh individual benefits, making euthanasia a more preferred rational approach to individuals with incurable illness or immense suffering. An argument by Bhajneek, Harrison, and Jeffrey (11), links the concept of assisted termination of life with the evolutionary theory by Charles Darwin where it is stated that only the strong and resourceful are fit to continue with the process of evolution and improve social outcomes. According to Kuře (12), in ancient society, it was defined as a morally permissible act to choose one’s own peaceful death and even more morally justified to do so in the face of inevitable death. The decision to lift the huge social burden from society demonstrated a lot of moral consideration which showed a lot of bravery.
An individual is in charge of their own life and just as they are allowed to make every other decision, the decision to die a slow or quick death should be left to their discretion. According to Bhajneek, Harrison, and Jeffrey (7), the decision to end one’s own life is simply an expression of individual’s rights and autonomy, which should be respected by all third parties. Some people may prefer to die on their own terms with the belief that people are responsible for their own destinies. In a situation where an individual is not satisfied with the outcomes they receive from palliative care, they should be allowed to choose euthanasia as a viable solution to end their suffering. Methodologically, the following research combines empirical research on the practice of Euthanasia with the aim of understanding how modern research has categorized the practice.
Arguments against euthanasia
A considerable number of euthanasia opponents believe that Euthanasia is wrong and only violates the purpose and dignity of life. Most of the opponents of euthanasia believe a good death to be one where one dies naturally or with courage. According to Kure (14), the famous philosopher Aristotle described the concept of a good death as one where one dies courageously while ensuring justice to the community. Euthanasia as a form of intentional life termination is seen as a means to escape misery and therefore not a good death since the individual is weak enough to give up on life. More so, a decision to terminate one’s life commits an injustice to the community, making it an undesirable form of death. Opponents of euthanasia prefer alternatives such as hospice as viable options to help victims endure suffering until the end.
According to Strinic (16), legalizing euthanasia would create a loophole for making it a norm since it may be easier or cheaper than other forms of palliative care. According to Bhajneek, Harrison, and Jeffrey (7), voluntary euthanasia can be the beginning of unnecessary involuntary euthanasia to get rid of unwanted elements. A major worry among the opponents of Euthanasia has been the fact that the policy will also apply to children. The same policies and decisions will be applied to premature babies with little prospects of survival. Extremely premature babies between the ages of 22 to 26 weeks, for example, have very little if any chance of survival and any who survive exhibit long-lasting health complications. Some physicians argue that probability of non-survival or long-lasting health complications should be a reason not to administer medication at all and instead let the baby die. However, opponents of Euthanasia believe that at such a point, all possible solutions to treatment should be considered to ensure premature babies survive and have an opportunity to live a normal life.
According to Math (899), autonomy has limitations and should not be applied to matters of life. We live in an independent society where decisions made affect the quality of life of those around us. One of the major arguments proposed by opponents of Euthanasia is given from moral standpoints. A decision to end one’s life has significant emotional, physical and financial consequences for those around the patients. Limitations should, therefore, be put on personal autonomy when it comes to life or death decisions. According to the ethical theory of utilitarianism, ethical decisions are those that consider optimal utility and welfare of majority stakeholders. According to this theory, the weight of an action depends on how much utility is generated to stakeholders with strong consideration for consequences. Morality is meant to improve the quality of life by accelerating the number of favorable outcomes and minimizing the number of poor outcomes. Decisions should, therefore, be made based on what serves a certain group best. According to Bhajneek, Harrison, and Jeffrey (6), based on this theory, the decision to legalize Euthanasia should be made by summing up the benefits and losses of stakeholders as opposed to individual benefits of the patient alone. More so, the decision should be made with reference to foreseeable consequences for family and friends in the future that are likely to generate poor emotional, physical and social outcomes.
According to various religious doctrines, euthanasia is unacceptable as it is a euphemism for killing. Taking life in the Christian worldview is a matter only left to the supreme God. The decision to take another life for whatever reason is therefore seen as an attempt to play God which is a sin. Based on the Christian commandment “thou shall not kill”, Euthanasia is unacceptable to the church at all costs. In consistency with this argument, the Jewish understanding of a good death is that life is a gift from God and he alone has the power to take it back (Math, 887). According to these doctrines, life is sacred and any attempt to voluntarily or involuntarily take a life violates the sacredness intended. According to various religious doctrines, suffering is significant. Suffering here represents a test by the Supreme Being to test the faith of the victim. Giving in to suffering is seen as a loss of faith which can attract divine consequences for an individual. Believers will therefore prefer to extend their misery or that of their loved ones to avoid offending God.
Conclusion
Euthanasia is a topic a lot of people fear to touch on. A lot of people believe that patients may make unexpected recovery or may be able to live happily in the end days of their lives. However, opponents of euthanasia fully ignore data and facts, and choose to live in oblivion. Thinking on a rational and more socially considerate perspective, Euthanasia can be a viable option to end suffering. Palliative care does not always provide solutions to all medical problems, leaving a significant number of people in immense pain. It is my opinion that voluntary Euthanasia should be legalized in a situation where a patient is in immense pain, faced with inevitable death and when nothing more can be done to ease the pain. While a lot of people think the practice may spiral out of control and apply to unnecessary cases, it is possible to regulate Euthanasia from the case of countries such as Netherlands, Germany, Japan among others who have allowed voluntary euthanasia as a medical process. Indirect Euthanasia happens anyway since society will abandon the person or give up too much of their lives to be there for the individual, making them feel like a burden. The community does more harm than good by keeping an individual in intense agony alive. The government, however, has to ensure strict measures to ensure all cases to administer euthanasia are justified and that no more assistance can be provided to the patient to improve the quality of the situation.
Works Cited
Grewal, Bhajneek, Jennifer Harrison, and David Jeffrey. "Licensed to Kill–The Impact of Legalising Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide on the Training of UK Medical Students." Scottish Universities Medical Journal 1.1 (2012): 6-13.
Köneke, Vanessa. "Trust increases euthanasia acceptance: a multilevel analysis using the European Values Study." BMC medical ethics 15.1 (2014): 86.
Kuře, Josef Kuře. Nphf.Nl, 2018, http://nphf.nl/footage/fm/File/Euthanasia_-__TheGood_Death Controversy_in_Humans_and_Animals.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2018.
Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K. Chaturvedi. "Euthanasia: right to life vs right to die." The Indian journal of medical research 136.6 (2012): 899.
Strinic, Visnja. "Arguments in Support and Against Euthanasia." (2015).