COMMENTARY AND EXPLANATION ON EUTHANASIA
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 8374
The Act of Euthanasia is a where a person or an animal is allowed to die, or the life is taken less painfully for the benefit of that person or an animal. Normally, in places where euthanasia is allowed, the perception of the people is that they would avert extreme medical conditions. It is believed that euthanasia just as it is derived from the Greek word eu and thanat to mean easy death, would give an individual or an animal easy death.
I will present Harrys N. M. work and his position on the debate on euthanasia, Robert Young on his discussion about voluntary euthanasia and Velleman’s against the right to die. There are different arguments and basis established for approval or disapproval of the act of euthanasia, with those against it claiming that it stands against morals as those who are pro-euthanasia arguing that it elevates a person from extreme situations. Those against the act also argue that the act does not put into consideration the effect of the action on law and socially.
Euthanasia should not be legalized due to its complexities and issues surrounding it. For example, a person may decide on a hospital bed to request for the termination of life, but as Velleman argues, we may not understand if this person is on his rational mind and is making such decision rightfully so that the decision be respected. Another instance is the investigation of alternative treatments for a patient by practitioners. Legalizing euthanasia will encourage the use of personal judgment to analyze the situation of a patient over the exploration of the available alternatives to save the life of the patient. Often than not on legal euthanasia, many patients would be subjected to involuntary euthanasia, ignoring the autonomy of such patient.
Harrys thinks that the morality should be a central concept in the discussion about euthanasia, with the consideration that the act is of benefit and right to others other than being harmful and wrong to others. This argument thus brings a broader consideration of the impact of the act on an individual to its impact on the society as Velleman argues; the act should be valid to both the person and the affected. Therefore, as Harrys puts it, the concept of morality requires more sophisticated analysis to derive meaningful understanding of its complexities.
The principle of beneficence requires that a person strive to contribute to the welfare of others the maximum benefit. In addition, it encourages the respect of a person’s autonomy, and that one should be allowed to act on their behalf. David Velleman in his work, “Against the Right to Die” also focuses on dignity and morality. He argues on the instant where a patient’s autonomy can be of value, saying that what should be valued on the first instance is a patient’s capacity for self-determination, value it and accord respect.
The complications also build on extent to which individuals understand what is morally acceptable, as this calls for the combined understanding influences of religion, education, genetics, environment, parental and geographical factors. Patients may also be influenced by different factors while opting for euthanasia. The factors that may influence a patient’s decision are also compromising autonomy. Societal perceptions, cultural beliefs, family situations are factors that compromise a patient's capacity for fully rational and autonomous decision making on euthanasia as Velleman would feel.
Permitting euthanasia has several implications on the patient. For instance, a patient who is terminally ill should be given hope to live. That person’s life needs valuable consideration to grant protection to those who are weak, the disabled and the vulnerable. Other than the protection bit, the criminalizing euthanasia will prevent any ill intent that would encourage revenge or punishment to a patient from a perceived enemy or opponent.
I would pick Young’s argument on the moral case and the objections on euthanasia to prove the arguments. He says that important decisions are made by people about their lives according to their conception of how they want their lives to go. He further argues that autonomy or self-determination should be considered and allows people take responsibility for their lives.
The issue of autonomy for a patient and a professional practitioner in the act of euthanasia may be contradicting. A patient may opt for easy death, an action that breaches the professional code of a practitioner, yet the practitioner is compelled to act on the patient autonomy and against the professional code. Young feels that there is no time that life would be considered a burden or unwanted opposing the perspective a person may have on a similar basis when opting for euthanasia. In a situation where the choice conflicts between a patient and a practitioner offering care, it is most important that the patient be transferred for care to a person who such conflict does not present.
In the objections presented in Young’s piece, it is only necessary to pick parts that show the arguments opposing the points. Death from extreme pain is nowadays limited by the improvements in technology and the expansion of palliative care. Wide availability and expanded sufficient provision of palliative care make euthanasia unnecessary. He further argues that it is never sufficiently easy to prove the fact that the patient a dying patient requested assistance to die, to question the voluntary bit. This again subjects the earlier argument that it legalized euthanasia can be misused for a revenge mission or eliminative intent.
In conclusion, taking euthanasia as a point of alleviating pain in individuals by terminating lives can be replaced by palliative and hospice care, which lessens the pain experienced by the patient. This should be conducted in a manner that would not present apparent side effects through intentional or negligible acts such as overdose or withdrawal of or withholding a patient assistive care that would prolong his or her life.