Today’s topic of discussion is euthanasia, also known as mercy killing. Euthanasia refers to the act of painlessly ending one’s life in order to alleviate suffering. It can be classified into different types: voluntary, non-voluntary, active, or passive. Passive euthanasia permits natural death to take place, while active euthanasia brings about death directly. Voluntary euthanasia necessitates the individual’s consent.
Non-voluntary euthanasia refers to performing the procedure without the individual’s consent, although it may align with their wishes. In contrast, involuntary euthanasia involves carrying out the procedure against the person’s desires. This discussion will focus on contrasting perspectives regarding this contentious issue, particularly examining the option of a person’s right to die as a means of alleviating suffering and evaluating concerns about a potential slippery slope. Advocates for euthanasia maintain that it grants competent individuals who are terminally ill an opportunity to avoid unbearable pain and achieve a death marked by dignity, highlighting the significance of having freedom in making choices.
The concept of euthanasia, derived from the Greek term meaning “good death,” suggests that individuals should have the right to end their lives when they find it unbearable or undignified. This viewpoint aims to alleviate extreme pain and suffering. Personally, I believe that allowing people to pass away with dignity is a more compassionate choice compared to forcing them to endure a life filled with agony. However, opinions on legalizing euthanasia as a solution for this matter vary.
Allowing practices such as physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia will inevitably lead to the endorsement or participation in currently unacceptable concepts like non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Nonetheless, there are alternative options for alleviating symptoms without resorting to ending the patient’s life, including palliative care and hospices.
Legalizing euthanasia poses a risk of premature death for individuals who may have had the potential to survive. This is because doctors struggle to accurately predict when death will happen or if there is a possibility of remission or recovery through advanced medical interventions. However, those facing illness may experience a loss of autonomy and decision-making ability, impacting their dignity and the value they place on life.
The loss of dignity and decrease in quality of life caused by illness can be remedied through euthanasia. By choosing death, patients can regain control over their own suffering and experience a swift and compassionate end. This enables them to maintain their dignity, which is something I strongly advocate for. Illness often results in a loss of independence and forces patients to rely on others, leading to humiliation and a decline in self-confidence.
The patient’s belief in preserving their dignity through choosing death should be respected, allowing them to make that decision. However, there is an opposing perspective which argues against euthanasia as it devalues life rather than preserving its dignity. Supporters of this view believe that only God holds the authority over life, from its beginning to its end, and therefore euthanasia contradicts this belief. They see euthanasia as a morally unacceptable act that should always be forbidden and excluded because it destroys the gift of life bestowed by God.
According to the personal choice argument, even though we acknowledge that God gives us life, we still have the capacity to exercise our own agency. When we oppose euthanasia, we are encroaching on individuals’ autonomy in determining their own paths. It is vital to honor people’s end-of-life preferences as a way of upholding human dignity and the right to self-governance. Each person has ultimate authority over their body and destiny, which should serve as the basis for making medical decisions. This freedom of choice should be universally available to everyone. Furthermore, it is contradictory that individuals have the freedom to engage in potentially harmful behaviors like smoking or drinking, or even choose suicide as a means of ending their lives, while being denied the opportunity to seek euthanasia.
Euthanasia is seen as a personal choice and fundamental right that enables individuals to end their pain, preserving independence and alleviating suffering in a dignified manner. Comparisons are drawn to euthanizing pets, which is regarded as an act of kindness, questioning why this compassion cannot be extended to humans. However, opponents argue that euthanizing pets should not be equated with murder because the decision to die is not made by the pet itself. As a result, laws prohibiting euthanasia aim to prevent abuse and protect individuals from unethical medical professionals and others who may make decisions on their behalf.
Family members pressuring the patient to choose euthanasia for their own benefit, such as inheriting wealth, presents another concern. It is difficult to determine if the decision for assisted suicide is truly voluntary or coerced by others, similar to how some people force their pets to die. Laws opposing euthanasia aim to protect individuals rather than cause them suffering. One example is the notorious English doctor Harold Shipman, who holds the record as one of the most prolific serial killers in history. He was proven to have committed over 250 murders.
The economical arguments Pro: Lastly, there is an economic argument for euthanasia. A health care system facing serious funding problems cannot afford to spend a fortune on terminally ill individuals or those in an irreversible coma. Therefore, if euthanasia was legal, it could free up funds to help other people… Con: Yes, it may have a potential impact on medical economics. Future medicine may view euthanasia as a means of controlling health care costs. The average cost of euthanasia is approximately 40 dollars, whereas comprehensive care for a dying patient typically costs tens of thousands of dollars.
Although euthanasia could result in the assisted suicide of uninsured patients and potential coercion from government and insurance companies on doctors to recommend assisted-suicide, supporters argue that it can decrease healthcare expenses by reducing spending on terminally ill patients. However, opponents claim that while it may lower costs, euthanasia could also lead to a decline in the quality of medical care.
While doctors possess advanced medical technology and expertise, some may lack the drive to save patients with severe illnesses. However, if euthanasia were authorized by those in authority, the progress made in treating diseases would become inconsequential. We must remember that hospitals and doctors are meant to preserve lives, not terminate them.
Active euthanasia involves deliberately causing someone’s death, such as through the administration of a lethal injection. In contrast, passive euthanasia occurs when one refrains from taking action that could potentially save a person’s life, such as not intervening in a life-threatening situation or withholding food and drink. It is important to distinguish passive euthanasia from the ethical decision to abstain from providing unnecessary medical treatment.
Choosing not to undergo unnecessary treatment, even if it results in death, should not be labeled as euthanasia. It is important to distinguish between this decision and genuine euthanasia. The slippery slope effect suggests that embracing practices like physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to accepting currently unacceptable concepts such as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.
Personally, I believe in the freedom to choose death and decline medical treatment as long as it doesn’t harm others. It is crucial for individuals to have autonomy over when and how they want to end their lives, without interference from the state. Moreover, legalizing euthanasia has the potential to optimize the allocation of medical resources and potentially save more lives.
However, we must also consider the impact of euthanasia on healthcare quality. If it becomes more prevalent, there is a concern that medical professionals may become less proactive in providing necessary care. Therefore, it is essential to thoroughly evaluate all aspects before making decisions regarding the right to die.
