Our country’s beliefs and views exhibit inconsistency and inequity. Throughout our lives, we are taught that the act of taking another person’s life is morally unacceptable, unlawful, and contradictory to religious principles. Nonetheless, exceptions to this principle exist. For example, killing in self-defense is regarded as an act of courage, while soldiers who eliminate enemies during warfare are seen as brave and honorable. However, determining which actions hold more justification than allowing individuals in immense pain and suffering to seek aid in terminating their own lives remains unclear. As the world experiences rapid transformations, we must consistently question whether these changes truly benefit us. People’s choices always spark debates among those with differing perspectives. The ongoing discourse surrounding euthanasia has persisted for years without showing any signs of resolution.
The availability of euthanasia is a topic that generates differing opinions. Some people support its use for individuals who feel their lives have no worth, while others oppose any justification for allowing euthanasia. These conflicting viewpoints result in different justifications. Supporters of euthanasia offer strong and thought-provoking arguments. They argue that those suffering from incurable illnesses or disabilities that cause extreme pain or prevent them from living a fulfilling life should have the option to end their lives, but only after thoroughly considering all other possibilities.
Advocates of euthanasia assert that the utmost priority for physicians is to prioritize the well-being of their patients. In certain extreme cases, this may involve expediting the dying process upon request from the patient. The primary obligation of a physician is to offer extensive support to their patients, including healing, prolonging life, and alleviating pain. However, in exceptional circumstances where all alternative measures have been exhausted, aiding in accelerating death could be seen as the most advantageous service a physician can provide to alleviate unnecessary suffering.
Legalizing euthanasia would allow individuals to show compassion when death becomes preferable to life, benefiting everyone involved. It is crucial to consider the families and loved ones of those who desire an end to their severe suffering. Witnessing a loved one in excruciating pain without the ability to alleviate it is a distressing experience. The emotions of helplessness and despair in this situation are unimaginable. Forcing someone to endure this while hoping for a swift resolution to their loved one’s agony would be ethically unjustifiable. Even though such occurrences are exceedingly rare, even a single instance like this provides sufficient evidence for the implementation of euthanasia.
Despite widespread opposition to euthanasia, the unfortunate reality is that it frequently occurs. Some doctors administer high doses of morphine to alleviate the pain and suffering of patients who are nearing their inevitable death out of compassion and mercy. While this action does accelerate death, the intention is solely to provide pain relief rather than intentionally cause death. The question arises: can applying a similar approach with the aim of hastening death be morally acceptable?
Despite the fascinating and thought-provoking nature of these views and arguments, there exists a significant number of individuals who oppose euthanasia. This majority comprises three primary groups: conservative religious groups, medical associations, and disability advocacy groups. Each group presents its own rationale against the utilization of euthanasia.
The religious groups contend that determining the timing and manner of someone’s death is a responsibility reserved for God, not individuals. They argue that intentionally ending an innocent life is equivalent to “playing God”. Nevertheless, this raises concerns about the use of medicine and aiding others. For instance, in the case of a severe car accident resulting in profuse bleeding, should we refrain from taking action because it aligns with God’s intended fate for that person? Those advocating this viewpoint from a religious stance need to clarify when human intervention is considered acceptable given divine authority.
The Medical associations argue against euthanasia, stating that it goes against the Hippocratic Oath’s prohibition on providing deadly medicine under any circumstance. While the American Medical Association has deemed physician-assisted suicide unethical, there is support for it in certain extreme cases among some doctors. Additionally, the medical field agrees that misdiagnosis or potential cures could arise, prompting doctors to prioritize extending patients’ lives whenever possible. The risk of reduced quality of care also arises if physicians have the option to administer death.
Groups advocating for people with disabilities have a unique perspective. They argue that if assisted suicide is accepted in even the most restricted manner, it could lead to a gradual acceptance of killing the disabled, the impoverished, or the elderly. They believe that once legalized, further actions will eventually occur, leading to more complications in the future. These concerned individuals firmly believe that adequate safeguards must be in place to prevent this dangerous “slippery slope.”
Three groups have developed their own defenses against the ban on euthanasia, and there are also individuals who oppose assisted suicide with their own beliefs. Some argue that regardless of the situation, we do not have the right to ask others to end our lives or help us in suicide. They believe that participating in such a procedure could lead to long-lasting negative effects on one’s daily life, such as depression, guilt, and other undesirable outcomes. This raises the question of whether it is reasonable to let someone who is going through unbearable pain and suffering pass away while also burdening another person with emotional distress.
Bonnie Steinbock argues that individuals have the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies, including the right to refuse medical intervention. However, it is important to consider how these choices may affect loved ones and avoid making decisions that could harm them. Steinbock also suggests that there are valid reasons for stopping life-prolonging treatment, not just because the patient wants to die. Personally, I agree with this viewpoint as I believe that if a treatment is doing more harm than good, people should be able to stop it.
Although there are situations where her statements remain valid, she argues that ending active treatment does not always result in a quicker and more desirable death compared to a prolonged one. This viewpoint holds true in particular cases where stopping treatment leads to less pain or relief from harmful side effects, allowing the patient to enjoy their remaining time. However, if discontinuing treatment intensifies agony and distress, choosing a swift demise would be the better option for the individual.
The question of whether euthanasia should be permitted is complex due to the influence of individuals’ morals and ethics, making it difficult to reach a consensus. Consequently, finding an optimal resolution becomes a challenge as people are deeply attached to their personal beliefs. As long as these convictions persist, the ongoing debate surrounding euthanasia will endure. It would be unjust to pass judgment on patients who express a desire for assisted suicide without fully comprehending their circumstances. However, individuals contemplating ending their lives ought to reflect upon the fairness and justice of burdening someone else with such a significant responsibility which could potentially cause severe emotional harm to those closest to them.
