The same can be said of a person so deeply infused with palliative medicine that one is incapable of fending for oneself or living to the ideal one reasonably believes to be fruitful and worthwhile. At what point does society decide that a heartbeat is no longer a viable form of living if one cannot experience or express oneself? The boundary between euthanasia and murder is often blurred; however, from an ethical standpoint, an individual cannot deny prolonging life causes undue physical, emotional, and mental pain.
Is it right for society to deprive individuals of personal liberties by refusing to give the individual the right to die? Does everyone having the right to “life, liberty, and security of person” mean that regardless of the resistance, an individual should have a heartbeat and when death is imminent deny that person the right to death, even when circumstances beyond human control dictate the loss of life? Farley (2009) defines security .. Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear” (p. L) A debilitating illness can strike doubt, anxiety, and fear into any heart, regardless of race, religion, or creed.
No one wants to have life ended by circumstances one cannot control. Yet, disease and illness strip an individual of security and choice over the direction of one’s life. Despite of the safeguards written in law, the truth is, it is being legally killed people with treatable depression and give assistance to kill themselves. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (EASE) advocates suggest that people whose disabilities or illnesses become so severe that life holds no promise of pleasure should be able to end their lives as painlessly and with as much dignity as possible. The emotional distress that is caused by seeing your loved-one in a vegetative state for an extended period of time while doctors continually tell you that there is no hope for recovery is potentially traumatizing. Some people who insider this as suffering for the vegetable loved one will want Euthanasia, but they haven’t an option. The medical facilities and time that is devoted towards the vegetative patient with low chances of recovery could be spent helping someone else in greater need.
Here in the Philippines, we already have a shortage of medical personnel and equipment; hospitals are overcrowded and have too many patients. This additional burden will only cause more damages. By letting those patients who are severely suffering and that do not have a chance Of living on to die will give more room for patients with disease that can be rued. Ill. FINANCIAL Euthanasia is the only such way to free your family from big hospital bills. Sometimes, it is the family member, who is in even greater emotional need than the patient.
Family members may exert pressure because they are spending too much of their own money that the patient otherwise could leave to the family. Economic benefits of Euthanasia are evident as it helps to prevent financial drain as well as health costs. Some families may not have the financial means to get medical care and this may lead to depression and would gutter their already limited resources. Economic Benefits of Euthanasia) Eighty percent of the Filipinos live in poverty, very little percentage can afford this and the chance who cannot afford keeping the relative on life support will result to being arrested.
By satisfying requests of individuals with a desire to be legally euthanized, money and resources that would otherwise be used could be conserved for the needy. Medical resource could be transferred from those who actively choose to die to those with a strong motivation to fight for survival to survive especially children and older people. (Jane Cooke, 21 October 2013, menacing death: The economic benefits of euthanasia) lb. CONSTITUTIONALITY House Bill no. 64 proposed to be known as Magna Cart of Patients’ Rights were introduced in the House of Representatives seeking to protect and declare the rights of the patients particularly sections 4 (paragraph 7 & 8) give them an option to terminate their own lives whether upon will or assisted by physicians. The bill did not prosper and was even posted by the Commission on Human Rights for advisory in turn of the explicit opposing views from the Church advising it is morally unacceptable notwithstanding it is a sacrosanct life in religion’s dogma that killing is inherently evil.
The issue as to why do we abhor euthanasia in moral perspective is undeniably obvious but in terms of legality there are certain considerations we must take in order to make sure the law does not overlook. One given example is abortion which is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life (Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973).
It is also an unlawful act punishable in articles 253 -? 256 of the Revised penal Code yet there are cases in the Philippines herein the act is impliedly permitted if the mother’s life is in grave, immediate danger, and the procedure is indispensable to her survival as supported by Section 12, Article 2 of the Constitution and noted in the UN Abortion Policies. In circumstances provided, this may deem applicable to the maxim that the law applies to all otherwise none at all and so if Euthanasia is prohibited in this country how come there are exceptions for cases in abortion.
It is a basic tenet in legal principle that both the unborn child and persons suffering from severe illness are considered to have civil personality which makes them capable of having the fitness to be the subject of legal relations and so therefore if the former act is deliberately taken into consideration and were given exemptions perhaps the latter must also be recognized and thoroughly discussed to come up With adequate and rational application in just limited surrounding circumstances say in the event like if the patient is willfully expressing authorization to extinguish his life for suffering unbearable pain or if the immediate family can no longer sustain the burden of emotional, financial and medical distress. The very nature of constituting a law is to promote a decent, humane and favorable society and with that legalizing Euthanasia accorded with right and acceptable terms hopefully will not be an encumbrance in maintaining the abovementioned purpose. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die.
It is cruel and inhumane to refuse the right to fie, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resource are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses. Euthanasia happens anyway, so it’s better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out. The request to die is usually a sign that there is underlying pain that is not being treated. Legalizing Euthanasia will not force everyone to take this course, but rather only provide an option.
