Euthanasia is the process through which a patient suffering from an incurable disease is assisted to die in a painless manner. Physicians assist in such circumstances by allowing people to die without feeling much agony. It is an action that allows desperate and injured individuals to die painlessly out of compassion for their suffering. Individuals are given the appellation Euthanasia, which means "easy death" in Greek. The same connotation was given to the phrase by Francis Bacon, who described the way of death as "following the fashion and semblance of a gentle & delightful sleep." The same meaning of attaining a painless death defines the word. In the medical field, Euthanasia is defined as a way of causing death to the severe injured or sick people in a painless manner due to pity. The same word bares the same meaning in the legal state. This paper will analyze whether Euthanasia only or Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide should be permitted in the society. The argument on the debate will be analyzed in a manner of comparing the pros and cons of Euthanasia only and Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide.
Discussion
Many people opt to cut short their lives without seeking any medical treatment. The intention to terminate a life of person is linked to Euthanasia; giving it another meaning form the shared perspective of assisted death. Many studies have been done regarding the idea of helping patients to die under painless conditions and circumstances. However, the idea of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are not permitted in the society. One of the studies found, "more often than not, patients died in pain, their desires concerning treatment were neglected, after spending ten days in an intensive care unit." However, religious groups have defined euthanasia as the termination of someone’s life with instructions or and request by the person dying. To be a free person from the accusation of murder, the person dying must request for the help in death before the assistance can be offered. The experiences encounter in the intensive care unit drives people to request for peaceful and painless deaths rather than suffering the uncomfortable and painful death (Rachels, and Stuart). Such deaths have been on the rise in the recent years.
Contrary to the wish of the patients who suffer and wish to be helped in dying, some of the practitioners and state laws do not permit the exercise to be conducted. Patients are to help patients to recover from the diseases they suffer from rather than helping to cut their lives. The guidelines indicate that doctors are to help patients recover from illness. The need of patients is to be treated and give hope that the suffering will end after the prescribed dose is over. The significance of euthanasia has not been clearly defined. The major reason of patients seeking the help of physicians is not that the patients have no hope of getting cured but to remove the pain of thinking about the physical pain. "To achieve that end, with dignity and without pain, doctors should be allowed to aid terminal patients by providing necessary doses of drugs." Despite doctors and physicians helping patients to die, the sole decision lies on the patients as they have control over their lives. The counter argument to those against physician-assisted suicide will agree that patients with extreme pain have no ability to contribute to the economy, as they cannot work. Hence, the solution to such unproductive patients is to eliminate them from the society and allow the energetic people to run the economy.
It is illegal to assist a patient in making a decision to eliminate and end their life when they are sick. During such a time, any decision that can ease the pain is as good to the patients. The idea of declaring that the decision lies solely in the hands of the patient will have no ground, as they are not in their sober mind during pain. Outside forces from the environment near the patient should not be used. Hence, the idea of Murphy during research when he concluded that, "To achieve that end, with dignity and without pain, doctors should be allowed to aid terminal patients by providing necessary doses of drugs," should not be sed. It is up to the patient to determine their fate.
In 1997, a law permitting the patient to determine whether assisted suicide can be done was passed and it has resulted to forty-three patients taking advantage of the rule in choosing a carefree life. Granting all powers in the hands of the patient granted them a choice in times of difficult situations regarding heath and pain. Using the rule where patients can be given the chance to eliminate their loves with a click of a button, they will do so in large numbers hence resulting into an under populated world. As much as there is no disease that people can wish to be associated with, the release of pain through death can be misused by many people (Steck, Nicole, et al.). For example, a person suffering from HIV Aids will use the law to kill himself/herself because they all know that there is no cure to the disease. It was derived that choosing death is a way of escaping torment by patients.
According to the morals of the society, it is not right for people t commit suicide. Despite legalization of the rule, the power to destroy the life of a person should not be held by anyone. The Christianity point of view is that only God can take away what He gave to people. The matter of life and death rests on the power of the creator. Not only Christians, all religious groups have believed about life and death. "Life is a gift from God and each individual is its steward, only God can start a life and only God should be allowed to end one. God does not send us any experience that we cannot handle."
A counter argument to the point of believing that God can give and take life, some people may say that God gave us life and gave the freedom to choose what to do with the life. The means of survival in the world are upon the hands of human beings. If it were to the ability of God to take it from people, then people must be playing games with God. Some of the people who suffer from incurable diseases are made to survive for years under the intensive care unit with high technology machines that can enable the patients to breath. If that can be argued to be the case then the donation of organs, prescriptions of medicine and other medical interventions will be regarded as interfering with the natural life cycle. If doctors have nothing to do t the matter of life and death, they should stop curing people and allow them to die when they fall sick. It is ascertained that doctors uphold the mandate to help patients in ding or surviving.
Understanding euthanasia is simple when it is looked from two perspectives that are active and passive. An active euthanasia is administering drugs direct to the patient in lethal doses with the intention of terminating life. However, under passive euthanasia, the life-support machines used in making the patients survive are withdrawn and other medical prescriptions denied. One of the oaths doctors take is the preservation of life and the ease of pain from patients. Some of the decisions to terminate medication and allow the patient to die are aided by family members and relatives. Under such circumstances, the doctor may or may not withdraw the services based on the performance of the patient in the recovery process. The family members may be having mercy to their loved one when a doctor is getting positive feedback from the condition of the patient. Under such cases, it is up to the doctor to help the patient to die or recover and get back to the normal activities.
Other factors that can lead to assisted suicide are the aim of inheriting the wealth of the sick person or the escape of the burden f doctor bills by the family members. For example, the aged have accumulated enough wealth in their lifetime and when they fall sick and become serious with no signs of recovery, the family members begin to fight for the properties even before the patient dies. Under such situations, families members can suggest to the doctor to stop medication to allow the patient die (Battin). Based on the studies done by scholars, "80% of relatives preferred to have their terminally ill loved ones die in the hospital, while 80% of dying persons...said they would prefer to die at home." Some people suffer too much until the people around can tell there are no hopes for surviving. In such cases, should the life of such people be postponed to a further time rather than allowing them to die?
Conclusion
Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide should be practiced. The major reason for supporting the case in such a manner is that the doctors can tell better on the chances of survival to patients than relatives and friends. The medication given and care is the major factor towards the healing process. As much as technology can enable a person to be kept alive for as long as they can afford, what matters is the brain functionality. There will be no benefit of having someone for years without a functioning brain that can advice. People can be kept alive for long with the help of technology but the bills paid are high. In a manner of reducing cost and stress to the affected people on the patient, helping the person to die a painless death old is of remedy. I will be unfair to allow a person lay in bed for a long period that at the end will result to death; instead, a Physician Assisted Suicide can be an alternative.
Works Cited
Battin, Margaret P, M P. Battin, Rosamond Rhodes, and Anita Silvers. Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. , 2015.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Educat, 2015. Print.
Steck, Nicole, et al. "Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review." Medical care 51.10 (2013): 938-944.
