Thesis Statement: The legalization of
Thesis Statement: The legalization of
euthanasia in some nations and States presents a serious ethical and moral
concerns to the society. Nevertheless, euthanasia is a wrong and an immoral act
that should not be legalized as a result of its lack of respect for the life of
following points will be used to prove the thesis of this essay:
The ethical aspect of the concept of
Euthanasia is an act of murder.
Physicians should abide by the
Hippocratic Oath and protect lives rather than killing.
Religion consider life as the most
fundamental gift from God, and hence it ought to be protected.
Euthanasia acts as a refutation of the
significance of life and the value for the human life.
There are other treatments that may be
utilized in the place of euthanasia.
Legalizing of euthanasia is prone to
misuse or exploitation.
to Baron, euthanasia refers to “the practice of painlessly terminating the
lives of individuals who may be suffering from incurable or distressing
diseases that makes their lives intolerable to live” (65). The subject relating
to euthanasia is one that has led to a lot of controversies in the contemporary
society. There are people who support this act whereas other who strongly
oppose it. There are several individuals who favor the idea of euthanasia,
predominantly because they feel that in a democratic society, free individuals
ought to possess the right to make a decision when to terminate their lives.
The practice of euthanasia is a legal one in nations such as Netherlands as
well as Belgium. In addition, it is as well lawful in states such as Oregon and
Washington. Dworkin et al. (54) assert that euthanasia is conducted through
giving an individual lethal injections or drugs that will slowly kill someone,
or even avoiding doing the necessary thing that can keep a patient alive. The
legalization of euthanasia in some nations and States presents a serious
ethical and moral issues to the society. Nevertheless, euthanasia is a wrong and
an immoral act that should not be legalized as a result of its lack of respect
for the life of human beings.
actually have a right to die? A right is an ethical case. People do not have
any claim on death; rather, it is death that has a claim on people. Some people
perceive the "right to die" as being equivalent to the "right to
life." Nevertheless, they are not. The basis of “right to life” is on that
life by itself is a gift that people do not possess as a property that one can
buy or sell, or just give away at will. People cannot take away the lives of
others or theirs. The basis of the "right to die" is on the notion
that perceives life as a "something people possess" and which they
may discard when it does not meet their satisfaction anymore (Gorsuch 34). The
philosophy about the "Right to die" asserts that there is nothing
like "life being not worth living."
is an act of murder in the case where it happens involuntarily, which is more
or less of killing. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia may lead to both non-voluntary as well as involuntary
euthanasia, through the awarding of doctors the authority to make a decision on
what time the life of a patient is no longer
worth living. According to Lucas, “approximately 1,000 patients in Netherlands
were killed devoid of their permission in 1990” (201). In addition, at times it is not apparent
whether a sick person really wants to die or not to die. In sharp contrast,
euthanasia should only occur when a person wants it (Somerville 113).
Oath- one of the opposition against euthanasia regards the moral responsibility
of physicians to protect the lives of their patients, as reflected in the
Hippocratic Oath. The prohibition opposing to the killing of patients acts as
the first promise of the Hippocratic Oath that is taken by physicians, as
medicine's fundamental taboo. A Hippocratic doctor rejects the perception that
the choice of a patient to die can make killing him morally right. For the
doctors, human life commands respect as well as reverence- through its very
nature. Since the respectability of life does not rely upon human agreement or
rather patient consent, annulment of an individual’s consent to live does not
dispossess an individuals’ living body of its respectability. According to
Keown (8), the profound ethical principle limiting the doctor's authority is
not the freedom of the patient or his/her own good intention. Instead, it is
the dignity and enigmatic power of human life, and therefore, doctors should
abide by the Hippocratic Oath that calls for the purity and respectability of
life. According to Dodie, “there might be occurrence of a "slippery
slope" where euthanasia leads to murder, and legalizing euthanasia will
illegally target the poor and disabled people” (70).
concerns- religious leaders and moral teachers consider life as the most
fundamental gift from God- one which human beings have stewardship but not
complete dominion. It is the moral obligation of people to care for not only of
their own life as well as health, but also care for others. As a result,
doctors do not have the moral obligation to use whichever available medical
measures in any circumstance to end the life of another person. As responsible
stewards of life, physicians must never openly intend to be the cause of
another person’s death, by action or omission. Therefore, all individuals and
groups of good will should reject any proposals for legalizing euthanasia.
should not be legalized as it acts as a refutation of the significance of life
and the value for the human life. Proposers of euthanasia often assert that it
is permissible to take away the life of a human being under specific
circumstances such as terminal illness. Nevertheless, this is an act of
rejecting the significance of human life. It is imperative for the lives of
human beings to be considered as significant, and to be valued. When human
beings assume the role of shortening their lives, or those of others, they play
the role of God, hence usurping the divine role. There is a contention that
many people in the medical profession assume the role of God on the operating
tables, which is an immoral act. No doctors ought to be given the permission to
kill another individual on whatever grounds.
other treatments that may be utilized in the place of euthanasia such as
palliative care as well as hospices. Physicians do not have to take away the
life of other patients as the modern medical world has more practices that may
be used in the management of pain. Hospice-style palliative care is a good
solution to address this issue as compared to euthanasia. The supposition that
patients ought to possess the right to die would impose on physicians a duty to
kill, therefore limiting the autonomy of the physicians. In addition, a ‘right to die’ among some
people may also turn out to a ‘duty to die’ by other individuals, especially
those who are susceptible or dependent on others (Keown 44). No matter how sick
a person is, we do not possess the right to put an end to his or her life. In
its place, we have the responsibility of caring for as well as preserving their
lives. The incapability of a person to function or recover from an illness does
not make his or her life worthless. In an active euthanasia, the direct cause
of death is not the disease of a patient but it is an induced act to the
patient that results to his or her death. Active euthanasia is wrong as well as
immoral to conduct since it destroys the life of another person.
addition, legalizing of euthanasia is prone to misuse or exploitation. Mistakes
and abuses that emanate from euthanasia cannot be completely eliminated in
euthanasia. There are doctors who tell patients about their looming death in
days, and yet the patients surprise them with extraordinary recoveries.
Huxtable asserts that “many doctors have experienced that embarrassing moment
where their pessimistic diagnosis has been proven wrong” (76). In the
contemporary world of medicine, there is imperfection of knowledge although
science is continuously improving. Therefore, there are several cases where
diseases may be diagnosed wrongly, or there are studies in progress to develop
a new cure. Furthermore, euthanasia undermines the social role of doctors as
healers. Furthermore, there is a distinction between killing an individual who
asks for death under proper circumstances, as well as killing an individual
devoid of their clear understanding because of feeling guilty through imposing
social along with financial burden of care.
be cases where physicians may practice negative euthanasia. According to Coster
(77), negative euthanasia refers to the withholding of procedures that are life
preserving and treatments that may prolong the life of an individual who has an
incurable and terminal disease. In such cases, the lives of innocent patients
may be ended in the name of ‘death with dignity.’ However, there is no dignity
in taking away the life of another person. In the past, dreadful stories
flourish relating to euthanasia being performed with tainted and unscrupulous
reasons, including the intentional completion of existence without patient
assent. Despite the fact that these occasions do propose the requirement for
more regulation and control of euthanasia, history has unmistakably showed that
any law or framework can be mishandled and willful extermination infringement
against human rights would show that slapping on the hand may not be sufficient
as a fitting punishment for misuse. Patient and doctor freedoms should first be
ensured by strict rules, laws, and protects that are certain to be entirely
emulated and implemented. In a nation of flexibility, claims are constantly
coming soon, in this way a reasonable line in the middle of murder as well as
euthanasia must be described and entirely maintained, or the limits between the
two will be permanently crossed (Gifford 23).
Not Resuscitate Order:
this is a type of advance directive. A
Do Not Resuscitate Order refers to a request for an individual not to
receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation in case one’s heart stops, or in case one
stops breathing (Gifford 23).
The Do Not Resuscitate Order is a type of passive euthanasia which
is honored by many hospitals.
Unless offered with other instructions, the hospital staff will make efforts to
assist any patient who has ceased breathing. One may utilize an advance
directive form or ask the doctor that he/she does not want to be resuscitated
and this DNR order will be attached to one’s medical chart.
conclusion, physicians ought to keep off from euthanasia so as to maintain
confidence in the society, and trust in the field of medicine as a healing
profession. Since, in the modern medical world, we stand on the edge of
advancement, it is right to make an assertion that new studies by scientists
that will cure the current disease, will be found tomorrow. It is therefore not
good for the physicians to give up hope while they are making their diagnosis
to patients. As a result, medical legislation ought not to make euthanasia