Euthanasia
- Details
- Hits: 5947
The following essay is a sample paper for an essay on Euthanasia. It should not be used as a ready paper for your assignment as it is already in our website. In case you want an original paper on the same topic please order for the essay at our site and our able writers will work on it from the scratch.
In life, there is the tendency to allow a person undergo a lot of non restrained pain and this is because the means to control this pain is not present; however, there are cases which generally can compel a doctor to end the life of the person if his or her evaluation is that the person may not have quality life even if he or she makes to get out of the hospital bed; and that is why Euthanasia should be legalized in United States.
Euthanasia
McDougall (2008) defines Euthanasia as an intentional killing by act or omission of a person who is dependent for an alleged benefit, and where some of it is voluntary, some non-voluntary or involuntary. However, some of these acts other than being by omission or action can be assisted suicide. For example, some people can provide the individual with the guidance, the information as well as the means to take the life of his or her own with some intention that they would be used for the purpose. A doctor can help a person kill him or herself and this category is called as physicians’ assisted suicide. The Euthanasia by action is when the person causes death of another by giving something lethal. An example is injection. The Euthanasia by omission is when the intentional death is by not providing necessary or ordinary/basic care such as food, water and shelter. It is like starving a person until he or she dies out of the lack of the necessities in life.
The Debate in United States
In United States, some of the citizens supported the use of Euthanasia while others strongly resisted on this. More so, the debate has ranged on whether the doctors should put an end to a person’s life due to some compelling situations or there should always be a peaceful death for everyone. According to Tulloch (2005), the arguments as noted in most of the opinion polls that have been carried out in United States are on the choice of death and the natural death. For example, a poll that was carried out by Zogby Company in the year 2000 showed that 30.4% of the respondents would rather have a merciful death from the doctor against 63.5% who would opt for a natural death. Among those who were polled, 6.1% were not sure of the kind of death they would wish to have, but one thing is clear; that there is a great divide on the kind of death people would wish to have or Euthanasia is supposed to be legalized in a country such as America.
Pro-arguments for Legalization of Euthanasia
While the doctors are treating the patients, one of their sole aims is to prevent death and improve the life of persons. However, if they deem it that, there is no point of more living; by the argument that the quality of life the person would live would be compromised, then, Euthanasia is the best practice at that time (Gorsuch, 2009). The decision as to whether a person is to be alive or not is never personal and the doctors as well do not have power to do so. Therefore, the only thing the doctor can do is to facilitate this if definitely it seems that the person would eventually die out of the complicated problems he or she may be having. There is also the economic factor where, many a times we are deprived of our cents and that means that we may not be able to access the needed medical care (Devettere, 2009). This being case and considering that we may not have the options of deciding whether the person would be well or not, the merciful death should just be allowed.
The doctors as well are argued to have the liberty to create, and it only makes sense that they should also be given the liberty to end the life (Loue, 2008). Ethics withstanding or not, the doctors are the determiners of whether the persons life would be of quality or not, and therefore, if they are allowed to end it prematurely, it only helps in mitigating the pain and the suffering that the persons relatives would undergo; and his or her pain as well. At times, the doctors offer the option to the patient, and due to the great pain, many deem it fit to have it ended prematurely.
The doctors such as those in the United States are paid handsomely to protect and ensure that the life of the persons they treat come to normal or are of quality. Therefore, if the doctors have the viewpoints that the quality of the person could never be quality after being released, or there is a probability that the person would spend his or her life entirely in the beds of the hospital, then, they should be allowed to terminate this life (Almagor, 2004). Again, study has shown that considerable number of doctors have argued that the best way to go is to legalize Euthanasia for the sole purpose of easing pain for the patients. Some of the patients are known to undergo tremendous pain and eventually, the patients would still have to die. The argument as put by Otlowski (2000) is that death, by natural means or by assisted means would still amount to death. By this, they argue that they should be allowed to terminate life through any means as far as it account to the goodwill of the person.
Keene (2002) on the other hand puts the argument that when there is legality of the issue, the act should be done in a way that is dignified and quick to account to a compassionate death. The argument here is that the right to die should be protected, and when the person in the danger feels that his or her life should be terminated, then, the doctors should comply and do as requested. This should never be categorized as murder but as Euthanasia on where it is done in a way that there is no pain inflicted to the person or the psychological pain to the caretakers of the person. Govier (2009) weighs the two options of legalizing or not legalizing and notes that, when the issue is not legalized, then, so many damages may be done psychologically, emotionally and physically.
Anti-arguments on Legalizing Euthanasia in U.S
Dickenson (2000) plainly puts it that intentional killing is murder and there is no better word to explain it. If a person tells another that he or she wants to die, the person in any capacity should not take it as casual kind of talk and should not comply because it is wrong. Again, Euthanasia is very complex and takes a number of issues into the circle such as the theological, the moral, the sociological and the legal aspects. Legalization of the issue would cause complexities and not respect the norm. Doyle (2005) brings in the issue of ethics and argues that when the doctors are allowed to terminate the death of a person whether with the consent of the sick person or not, one thing is clear; the ethics are violated. That is why the government should not legalize Euthanasia.
Adding on ethics in the whole issue of medical care, Rai (2009) notes that dignity should come in whenever a doctor is on course to treat a patient. A patient is brought in the hospital because there are needs to treat him or her and any doctor should stick to that notion until the natural cause of death is involved. Essentially, even if the person is an old person, ethics should always be first, and that is why the government and the protectors of human rights should not hear anything like legalizing Euthanasia. On this as well, Somerville (2001) writes that even at the micro level, there should be nothing like allowing the doctors to carry out assisted deaths to the person because that would set a bad precedence in the country. More things would be demanded, as this would be like the basis of many other things to be allowed. Anything touching on the death of a person should be left to the super person who created the person in the first place who is God. God would always go for natural death and He knows when the person’s death would come by.
Legalizing Euthanasia would be very much inconsistent with the tenets of a proper legal system that abhors any kind of decriminalization (Longo, 2010). He notes that going this way would make the process be discriminatory, as the weak ones who cannot make to pay full amount would be killed with a justification of the economic factors. The law should not make it possible for the killing by virtue of consent from the person who is sick, or even because there are some compelling circumstances such as the economic times. When this is combined with the ethics, it would seem as though the persons who can afford high medication in United States would have immune from such kind of a law while those people who cannot afford high medication would be considered for Euthanasia. It would be legal justice only applying to a few where the rich would not have the law applies to them while the weak would be targeted.
References
Almagor, R. (2004). Euthanasia in the Netherlands: The policy and practice of mercy killing. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.
Devettere, R. (2009). Practical decision making in health care ethics: Cases and concepts. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Dickenson, D. (2000). Death, dying, and bereavement. London: SAGE Publications ltd.
Dowbiggin, I. (2007). A concise history of euthanasia: Life, death, God, and medicine. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Doyle, D. (2005). Oxford textbook of palliative medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gorsuch, N. (2009). The future of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Govier, T. (2009). A practical study of argument. Belmont: CengageBrain Learning.
Keene, M. (2002). Religion in life and society: GCSE religious studies for edexcel ‘A’. New York: Folens Limited.
Longo, D. (2010). Harrison’s Hermatology and Oncology. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Loue, S. (2008). Encyclopedia of aging and public health. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.
McDougall, J. (2008). Euthanasia: A reference handbook. California: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Otlowski, M. (2000). Voluntary euthanasia and the common law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rai, S. (2009). Medical ethics and the elderly. Washington D.C: Radcliffe Publishing.
Somerville, M. (2001). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Tulloch, G. (2005). Euthanasia, choice and death. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.