Introduction
Euthanasia, sometimes called assisted suicide, is a controversial practice in contemporary society. On the one hand, supporters argue that individuals should have control over their bodies, including the choice to end their own lives and the right to pass away in dignity (Lamb, 2021). Euthanasia is considered unethical and breaches the sanctity of life, according to opponents.
Life Autonomy
Euthanasia supporters believe that individuals should have the liberty to make decisions regarding their healthcare, which may encompass choosing to terminate their own lives. The position asserted is that euthanasia can be a humane and compassionate approach to mitigating agonizing pain in those afflicted with a fatal malady (Minocha & Mishra, 2019). Individualism is the backbone of autonomy, a guiding principle that believes people can decide what medical care they receive. Healthcare ethics rely on this principle but it is also a fundamental personal right. One of the most controversial applications of this belief is euthanasia, where proponents argue that patients should have the right to choose when they should pass on, especially when they are struggling with a fatal illness. According to Lamb (2021), this idea of personal liberty is at the very core of the argument for euthanasia.
Under certain conditions, supporters of euthanasia argue that it could be a compassionate method to end the unbearable pain of a terminally ill patient. These advocates point out that the patient’s quality of life is greatly reduced, and their agony is often intolerable. In such scenarios, euthanasia could relieve suffering and allow patients to pass with dignity and calmness. Lamb (2021) suggests that euthanasia should be contemplated when a life-threatening sickness causes the patient to suffer and their quality of life significantly diminishes. The pain and distress could be so intense that traditional medical treatments or palliative care may not offer complete relief. In such cases, euthanasia offers an empathetic solution that can help alleviate the patient’s agony. For instance, even with the finest pain relief, a cancer patient in the last stages of the disease may still feel severe agony (Minocha & Mishra, 2019). Euthanasia proponents argue that allowing patients to terminate their lives in such circumstances may be a compassionate method to ease their pain and suffering.
Some terminally ill patients, according to proponents of euthanasia, feel suffering that goes beyond physical pain and involves emotional and psychological discomfort. These patients could lose their sense of dignity, independence, and control over their own life. For instance, a patient with a degenerative neurological condition may gradually lose their independence, cognitive ability, and mobility (Lamb, 2021). This might cause them to endure severe psychological anguish. Euthanasia proponents contend that giving patients a choice to terminate their lives in such situations may allow them to exert some control over their circumstances and do so in a way that respects their autonomy and dignity.
Euthanasia advocates also contend that it may be a more affordable alternative for terminally ill patients who are getting expensive medical procedures but have little chance of recovery. The cost of protracted medical treatments may often be large, even when the patient’s life expectancy or quality of life may not increase much (Minocha & Mishra, 2019). Euthanasia proponents contend that giving patients the option of euthanasia may save them and their families the financial burden of extensive medical treatment and provide them with a quiet, respectable end to their suffering.
The hazards and moral ramifications of willfully taking a person’s life, even in circumstances of terminal disease and severe pain, are legitimate issues raised by opponents of euthanasia, nevertheless. Others contend that making euthanasia legal might lead to misuse and compulsion, particularly for people who are already at risk, such as those who are old, have mental illnesses, or are from underserved neighborhoods (Lamb, 2021). They contend that it is not always feasible to forecast a patient’s prognosis accurately and that, with the right medical attention and support, some people may recover or see improvements in their condition (Zajdel, 2020). In addition, euthanasia critics contend that the practice goes against the idea of the sanctity of human life and that is willfully terminating a life, even with the patient’s agreement, is against the moral and ethical standards of the medical community.
Preservation of Life
Euthanasia opponents contend that, even with the patient’s consent, intentionally ending a person’s life is immoral because life is a gift that should be preserved. They contend that euthanasia should be prohibited because it could create a dangerous situation in which people are forced to choose to end their lives due to social or financial pressures.
Preservation of Life
Euthanasia opponents contend that life is intrinsically important and should be protected at all costs. They contend that regardless of the circumstances, every human life has inherent value and dignity, and purposefully eliminating a life is immoral (Lamb, 2021). They believe that since human life is unique and precious, legalizing euthanasia would violate the value of human life.
The worth of human life is emphasized by many religious or philosophical ideas held by euthanasia opponents. Certain religious traditions value human life as sacrosanct and hold that only a higher force can decide when someone’s life is ending (Minocha & Mishra, 2019). Euthanasia is considered as playing God and interfering with the normal flow of life and death. Euthanasia opponents contend that making it legal might have a negative impact on how society views the worth of human life. They contend that legalizing euthanasia would make people less aware of the value of human life and might make society less sensitive to the sanctity of life (Graafland et al., 2023). This may convey that euthanasia is a valid way to terminate someone’s suffering, which could have serious repercussions for vulnerable groups, including the elderly, people with disabilities, and those who suffer from long-term diseases.
Concerns about Societal and Economic Pressures
Euthanasia opponents often voice concerns about societal and economic variables that may influence people’s choices to select the procedure. They argue that those who are weak, such as the elderly, those with disabilities, or members of marginalized groups, may feel pressured to choose euthanasia because of societal or economic factors, such as a lack of access to high-quality healthcare, financial burdens, or demands placed on caregivers (Graafland et al., 2023). Opponents assert that euthanasia might be recommended as a less costly option than comprehensive palliative care or other aid forms when a society’s healthcare resources are limited (Zajdel, 2020). Due to financial or resource limitations, this might result in a situation where individuals feel compelled to choose euthanasia rather than get the appropriate medical care to end their suffering.
Another point brought up by opponents of euthanasia is the potential for coercion or undue influence on the decision-making process. They claim that vulnerable persons, such as the elderly, the physically disabled, or the mentally ill, may feel pressured or coerced by family members, caregivers, or society to choose euthanasia, even if that is not what they desire (Graafland et al., 2023). This raises ethical concerns about autonomy and consent since extraneous influences should not influence euthanasia.
The Slippery Slope Argument
The slippery slope argument, which contends that permitting euthanasia might set a risky precedent where eligibility requirements for euthanasia gradually blur, is often brought up by opponents of the practice. They contend that once euthanasia is legalized, it could result in a slippery slope where the eligibility requirements are widened beyond those who are terminally ill and experiencing unbearable pain to include other conditions like chronic illness, mental illness, or even non-medical factors like financial hardship (Persson et al., 2020). Consequently, the worth of human life can be progressively eroded when euthanasia becomes a commonplace remedy for various problems or situations.
Euthanasia opponents worry that people’s faith in medical professionals may decline if it becomes legal. They contend that if euthanasia were permitted, the core tenets of medical ethics—do no harm and always act in the patient’s best interest—would be jeopardized (Graafland et al., 2023). Patients may worry that their lives might be prematurely terminated without their full knowledge or permission and may question the motivations of the healthcare professionals treating them (Persson et al., 2020). This might harm the patient-provider connection, undermining the trust necessary for efficient healthcare delivery.
Moral Position on Euthanasia: Emphasizing Compassion, Autonomy, and Safeguards
Euthanasia should, in my opinion, be permitted and controlled in certain situations. Everyone should have the option to choose how they want to be treated, including whether to end their lives (Grassi et al., 2022). In order to stop systematic abuse and ensure that people are not forced into choosing this course of action, I also think that strict regulations need to be put in place.
Compassion and Relief of Suffering
The humane goal of easing the excruciating anguish of terminally sick individuals is one of the strongest arguments for euthanasia. Giving those in unbearable pain and suffering with no chance of recovery the choice to pass away peacefully and with dignity is ethically acceptable (Grassi et al., 2022). Because there are no effective medical treatments to relieve someone’s suffering, it is our moral responsibility as fellow beings to do so and soothe the hurting. In certain instances, euthanasia may be seen as a kind act that permits someone to pass away with dignity and minimal suffering.
Autonomy and Personal Choice
In the moral debate over euthanasia, respecting autonomy, or the idea that every person has the freedom to choose whether or not to live, is essential. Everyone deserves the freedom to choose how they wish to terminate their lives, particularly if they suffer from a fatal illness (Lamb, 2021). As long as it is made willingly, with informed permission, and without any outside influences or force, it is a personal and individual choice that should be honored.
Safeguards and Ethical Considerations
While autonomy and compassion are important moral values, it is also crucial to have strong protections in place to guarantee that euthanasia is done in a morally righteous and responsible manner. Exact instructions on the technique and protocols for delivering euthanasia are examples of precautions (Grassi et al., 2022). A comprehensive assessment of the patient’s condition and prognosis by several healthcare experts is one of the additional safeguards. In order to avoid the abuse and exploitation of euthanasia and to guarantee that vulnerable people are safeguarded (Persson et al., 2020). It is also essential to have legal and regulatory frameworks in place.
Consideration of Potential Risks
It is crucial to recognize and handle any dangers and issues related to euthanasia, as with any complicated moral problem. They include the potential for a “slippery slope” when the qualifying requirements are widened beyond what was intended, the chance that social or economic pressures may affect a person’s choice to terminate their life, and the possible decline in patient-provider trust (Mehlum et al., 2020). Any euthanasia policy or law must be properly planned and implemented to meet these hazards.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are strong reasons for both sides in the complicated and nuanced discussion of euthanasia. The autonomy concept, the alleviation of suffering, and the possible cost-effectiveness of the procedure are all stressed by euthanasia proponents. They contend that people should be free to decide what happens in their own lives, including whether to terminate their own lives if they are enduring excruciating pain or a fatal disease. They also emphasize the importance of protecting patients’ autonomy and dignity in their dying moments.
Opponents of euthanasia, however, focus on the need to preserve life, the dangers of abuse and compulsion, and the violation of the sacredness of human life. They contend that purposefully taking a life, even with the person’s consent, undermines the worth of human life and is ethically immoral. Moreover, they raise worries about the possible cultural pressures and economic incentives that can lead people to choose euthanasia, as well as the potential desensitization of society to the worth of life. Euthanasia is a subject that has to have its ethical, moral, and practical ramifications carefully considered. To properly comprehend the drawbacks and advantages of euthanasia, it is crucial to have meaningful, polite conversations about it. It is also necessary to work toward solutions that put people’s liberty and well-being first while respecting the worth and sanctity of human life.
References
Graafland, W., Pleizier, T. T. J., Boer, T. A., & Groenewoud, A. S. (2023). Challenges in pastoral care practice in euthanasia: A concept mapping study among Dutch protestant pastors. Death Studies, 1-11.
Grassi, L., Gaind, K. S., Nash, T., & Caruso, R. (2022). Euthanasia and medical assistance in dying as challenges for physicians’ well-being. Depression, Burnout and Suicide in Physicians: Insights from Oncology and Other Medical Professions, 113-125.
Lamb, C. M. (2021). Paediatric euthanasia in Canada: New challenges for end of life care. Paediatrics & Child Health, 26(2), 79-81.
Mehlum, L., Schmahl, C., Berens, A., Doering, S., Hutsebaut, J., Kaera, A., … & di Giacomo, E. (2020). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in patients with personality disorders: a review of current practice and challenges. Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation, 7(1), 1-7.
Minocha, V. R., & Mishra, A. (2019). Euthanasia: Ethical Challenges of Shift from “Right to Die” to “Objective Decision”. Annals of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (India), 55(02), 110-115.
Persson, K., Selter, F., Neitzke, G., & Kunzmann, P. (2020). Philosophy of a “good death” in small animals and consequences for euthanasia in animal law and veterinary practice. Animals, 10(1), 124.
Zajdel, K. A. (2020). Difficulties experienced by the family in the challenges of euthanasia–hopes and illusions. Medycyna Ogólna i Nauki o Zdrowiu, 26(1), 48.
write