Introduction
Euthanasia is immoral, and physicians should abandon the practice because of the numerous inherent risks. Euthanasia is against Christian teachings that life is sacred and only God can take life away. It is also difficult to determine whether the patient consented to the process. Patients who wish to procure euthanasia may succumb to the pressure of hastened death because of old age, disability, or little education on the subject. Similarly, physicians who choose euthanasia are perceived as less trustworthy by the hospital staff and their patients. This paper considers arguments against euthanasia as an inhumane medical procedure by illustrating points for consideration and counterarguments for the same.
Background Information
The role of physicians is to heal, cure, or prolong the death of a patient due to health complications. Physicians are responsible for caring for and comforting terminally ill patients (Flight, 2017). Every individual is guaranteed death at some point in their life. In respect of this, our view of death relies on personal sanctity and our quality of life. It is difficult to come to terms with the death of a young person because death is characterized by old age. Currently, irreversible coma is classified as death but is prone to controversy arising from obtaining transplants of body organs. Besides, the high dependency on resuscitative cures leads to supplementing efforts to save the life of individuals. More and more people are turning to physicians to improve their health or postpone death as much as possible (Flight, 2017). Therefore, it becomes necessary to resolve the question of dying because of the emptiness experienced by terminally ill patients.
Nurses are responsible for daily activities surrounding patient care and increasing the life expectancy of patients. Patients who withhold food and water reveal that there is no longer an interest in nurturing patient care (Flight, 2017). Indeed, it is difficult to accept the ethical and moral dilemma surrounding euthanasia. Orders against resuscitation have been publicized to indicate that individuals have the right to make informed choices about their life. The dilemma among practitioners is whether it is more appropriate to prevent death or limit suffering (Flight, 2017).
The Patient Self Determination Act applies to health agencies and entities that maintain written policies and procedures for patients during enrolment and admission (Flight, 2017). This Act allows patients to provide express information on the rights of patients under advanced executive directives and carry out these privileges. Practitioners are also advised against educating staff and the community on advanced technologies.
Patients can assess the right to reject or accept treatment procedures and provide directions to friends, professionals, and relatives. Danforth explains that medical technology has surpassed the question of ethics. Additionally, technocrats eke out the final moments of life and include assuming God’s role in medicine (Flight, 2017). Physicians are taught the significance of cherishing and preserving life. This means that physicians must avoid causing the death of their patients and act in the best interest of patients. Sometimes, acting in patients’ best interests means allowing them to die.
Euthanasia expresses the perception of society towards death and how society perceives the elderly on their autonomy and religious teachings. Euthanasia can be carried out in various forms, such as the removal of life support machines, the use of living wills, and the health care proxy (Flight, 2017). The living will cover terminally ill patients and include restrictions on treatment directives. The late 1980s was when living wills were rarely used in clinical practice. In addition, living wills are considered competent because patients can decline artificial life-sustaining mechanisms. The option of living wills is only met when patients utilize the medical guidelines presented by the procedure.
Irrespective of these, the law of living wills may be substituted with the durable power of attorneys. This provision empowers attorneys to exercise wider scope of illnesses than the living will exception (Flight, 2017). Given this, this provision is considered in patients with terminal illnesses where death of patients is imminent. The law of durable power becomes effective when there are circumstances that lead to incapacity or disability of the patient. Besides, this legislation differs from the regulatory powers of attorneys manifested by terminating the power of attorneys during the incidence of disability.
Aside from this, the healthcare proxy identifies patients’ rights, and healthcare agents enable them to decide whether the agent has the right to make decisions on behalf of the patient (Flight, 2017). Furthermore, the legislation empowers patients against the restricted authority of agents. This provision gives physicians the authority to make health decisions on behalf of agents due to incapacity. Such decisions can be hindered by expressly notifying the agent of legal separation from the principal. In these cases, incompetent patients are permitted to seek the consent of family members because the family is the most generally concerned party about the well-being of patients (Flight, 2017). The rationale is that the family is the most knowledgeable party on patients’ goals.
Euthanasia is discouraged except for circumstances where the attempts by physicians to save life have yielded little effort to comfort the patient. The procedure allows physicians to avoid the lives of patients that are inevitably suffering and situations where it is crucial to prevent the violence of diseases on the patient (Flight, 2017). Additionally, euthanasia is effective in mastering diseases that are considered powerless. However, there are several arguments against the implementation of euthanasia. For example, euthanasia is mistaken for diagnosis, and it becomes difficult to determine if euthanasia is given under undue influence (Flight, 2017). Physicians are faced with the dilemma of giving in to the pressure of hastening the death of elderly individuals, uneducated or disabled individuals. Euthanasia promotes the killing of patients who are experiencing upheavals in their lives. Based on this and other inherent reasons, I choose to decline the implementation of the euthanasia option during patient care procedures.
Arguments against Euthanasia
Currently, euthanasia has been considered for legitimization in various jurisdictions (Laung & Wong, 2022). Euthanasia ends the life of individuals with the prospect of ending pain and suffering. Physicians and medical professionals provide lethal drugs and injections to patients that wish to procure euthanized procedures. Asian countries are against the legalization of euthanasia because of enhanced focus on focus and consideration. However, the Hospital Authority Guidelines on Life-Sustaining treatments have illegal and unethical (Lau & Wong, 2022). Social values and culture are crucial to managing the acceptance of euthanasia effectively. African countries are more inclined to vote against the debate on euthanasia because of the belief that Africans are less inclined to accept assisted suicide due to their belief in the procedure. Nations against Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam believe life is a gift from God. These factions believe God is the supreme authority who decides when people are ready to die (Lau & Wong, 2022).
The increasing population of aging individuals has shown that religion plays a key role in determining the culture and values of euthanasia among this population. Africans prefer to control their lives rather than accept euthanasia. Most importantly, Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam believe that their belief accepts euthanasia in God and the way to die. Christians show negative attitudes towards euthanasia which reveals issues of religion and clinical issues (Lau & Wong, 2022). Medical students have a negative attitude towards euthanasia compared to non-Christians. Christians consider life a gift from God and believe euthanasia is murder and immoral. Belgium is a non-Christian country that has legalized euthanasia. Besides, women are less likely to accept euthanasia compared to males.
Chinese residents in Hong Kong are against euthanasia because of their strong traditional cultural beliefs, and the topic of death brings bad luck to the community. Clinical exposures and religious differences are related to euthanasia (Lau & Wong, 2022). Euthanasia is associated with devaluing human life, religious and ethical problems, and a high rate of corruption. Active euthanasia is associated with mercy killing, which involves killing another terminally ill person (Kalal, 2019). Active euthanasia is the death of another individual. Passive euthanasia involves actions that are likely to end the end of the individual. Passive euthanasia aims at resuscitating the terminally ill patient. Other methods of continuing passive euthanasia include discontinuing the feeding tube or failing to consider life-threatening situations, such as failing to renew the terminally ill patient.
Terminally ill patients are likely to develop a sense of self-determination and show a desire for euthanasia. The subject is controversial though there is legal provision on the issue (Fontalis et al., 2018). Switzerland allows euthanasia by a non-medical physician, which makes non-citizens travel to Switzerland to procure euthanasia procedures. This leads to overexploitation by non-Swiss citizens who visit Switzerland for euthanasia. Assisted death is part of palliative care and not an alternative for terminally ill patients. This means that more patients are turning to euthanasia as a remedy to prolong life and enhance the quality of treatment (Fontalis et al., 2018). Several countries have raised concerns about the vulnerability of elederly individuals and limited access to palliative care. Holland presents a case of an increase in euthanasia, but the legal status of euthanasia still questions the ethical issues in promoting the act.
In the United States, doctors are authorized to give lethal doses to terminally ill patients. However, the practice of euthanasia is controversial due to the ethical concerns about legalizing physician-assisted suicide (Kalal, 2018). Aside from the ethical and moral issues surrounding the debate on euthanasia raise, global controversy on the acceptability of the practice. Euthanasia raises religious, moral, and legal obligations that cannot be ignored (Kalal, 2018). No one has the privilege to take away an individual’s life, including the individual himself. Besides, the moral sanctity of life deserves respect because the person wishes to preserve and uphold their life and cannot justify the need to die.
The lack of consensus on the issue of euthanasia is due to the concern about euthanasia as a form of holistic care. This means that euthanasia as a medical procedure requires mental, physical, cultural, and spiritual concerns (Cayetone-Penman et al., 2021). Religious beliefs on euthanasia discourage the adoption of euthanasia. Christians and Iranian nurses have negative attitudes towards euthanasia because it goes against the traditional Christian belief that life is sacred. Religious communities believe life belongs to God and teach against the propagation and promotion of suicide-assisted death (Cayetone-Penman et al., 2021). Catholic nurses are less inclined to accept the practice of suicide-assisted death. They oppose euthanasia because it infringes the faith in life after death. Additionally, French nurses oppose the practice as inhumane and against their human consciousness. Non-religious nurses are more willing to accept euthanasia and show a positive attitude toward the practice.
However, non-religious nurses in New Zealand oppose the practice due to their value of life (Cayetone-Penman et al., 2021). It is unethical to end the life of another individual under any given circumstances. Aside from this, medicine was discovered to preserve the life of patients, and the discoveries in the field of medicine should work towards preserving life. Injecting lethal doses is associated with murder, and families may exploit the option of euthanasia in their favor. Male nurses express positive attitudes toward euthanasia compared to female nurses, who view the practice as immoral and unethical (Cayetone-Penman et al., 2021).
Similarly, age, work environment, and know-how on the issue of palliative care influence the decision of female workers on euthanasia. Religious and moral backgrounds affect the attitudes and perceptions of nurses toward euthanasia (Cayetone-Penman et al., 2021). Besides, palliative care determines nurses’ perception of euthanasia because, with quality palliative care, there is no need for euthanasia. Euthanasia discredits the need to provide palliative care to terminally ill patients. Patients that receive high-quality care see no need to request euthanasia. Therefore, euthanasia is not an available option where there is optimal palliative care.
Terminally ill patients deem their life as less deserving and valuable. The quality of life is the variant of the comforts, tranquility, and status of terminally ill patients (Cohen-Almagor, 2015). Most patients have the will to live and continue enjoying their lives. Even in the direst situations, many terminally ill patients opt for life. The desire to live is higher than the will to consult nurses on terminal illness and imminent death. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim patients prefer to uphold the quality of life. Focusing on the quality of life provides patients with a zeal for life (Cohen-Almagor, 2015). With this in mind, the justification for ending life should not entirely be left to the patient because they may be in distress.
The right to euthanasia must be afforded to patients only in their right state of mind. The liberal state must preserve life. Patients who are unable to express their opinions in intelligent and rational ways because of their status (Cohen-Almagor, 2015). Patients who express their desire to prolong life should indicate the same in writing or recordings. However, patients have the liberty to express their desire to end their life in situations that show deterioration.
Besides, embracing the right to death with dignity disposes terminally of ill patients from society. Palliative care violates the right to life in various jurisdictions, such as India and the US (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). Legalizing euthanasia is likely to limit developments in the care of terminally ill patients. For example, there has been a decline in government expenditure on terminally ill patients in the Netherlands. Euthanasia is a form of suicide conceived as a sign of depression and substance use disorders (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). Patients who turn to euthanasia are defined as weak and launch a desperate call for help. Euthanasia is a symptom of mental illness.
Medical professionals face the dilemma of allowing euthanasia because family members may misuse the legislation for their benefit. Medical professionals must protect terminally ill patients against unnecessary lawsuits from euthanasia procurement (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). Medical professionals are responsible for caring for their patients even under circumstances where there is no cure. Rather than choosing euthanasia, patients can consider palliative care and rehabilitation to improve their health outcomes. Decisions on euthanasia are pegged on poverty, futile interventions, and lack of resources to invest in enhanced medical care for patients.
Christians view life as a gift from God, and death is part of life. No individual has the supreme authority to take away another person’s life under whatever circumstances (Christian Standard Bible Version, 2009). All human beings are precious due to their image and likeness, which are associated with Godly characteristics. God made human beings in His image, which means that we are made in the capacity of rational existence as part of creation. As we grow and develop, it becomes increasingly interesting to develop a sustainable and impressive life. It is important to increase and preserve our life on earth as the most treasured of God’s creation (Christian Standard Bible Version, 2009). There is no way that an individual can justify the killing of another being, even if they are terminally ill. The argument against euthanasia aligns with the Biblical view that we are created in the image and likeness of God.
Arguments for Euthanasia
Arguments for euthanasia focus on the argument that life is precious. Dying without pain is considered honorable and promotes moral adequacy (Rodriquez, 2001). Medical professionals assume that taking the life of terminally ill patients allows them to give in to underlying and inevitable consequences of underlying causes of death. Medical practitioners have the right to determine whether patients will recover from medical conditions. As such, prolonged life is a futile way of preserving human life (Rodriquez, 2001). Pain and suffering cause patients to live agonizing lives, and euthanasia is a form of death with dignity.
Physicians are responsible for respecting patients’ dying wishes and disengaging from irrational decisions of prolonging life among terminally ill patients. Euthanasia is a virtuous act based on the doctrine of beneficence and a common practice among residents in Holland (Rodriquez, 2001). Euthanasia arouses moral and ethical debates among practitioners on eliminating life. More importantly, it is important to consider the argument on the interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath. The section that supports euthanasia is the issue of avoiding harm and promoting goodwill in patients’ lives (Kumar et al., 2021).
Similarly, Christianity provides that life is precious and only God can end life. However, this is disputable because legal sources applaud euthanasia. Several countries have accepted and embraced the intervention as part of patient-centered care.
Terminally ill patients face pain and suffering, which their medical conditions can elongate. In addition, physicians must take necessary steps to preserve the life and dignity of such patients (Chinweze, 2005). Patients are responsible for their lives, and the right to self-determination justifies the practice of euthanasia. The right to die belongs to God, but it becomes necessary to dispute this idea when balancing the overall effect on the life of terminally ill patients. Individual rights to autonomy against the state encourage the need to end human suffering among terminally ill patients.
Lastly, modern society is not pegged on the need for sustaining and sanctifying human life. People with the capacity to decide their issues decide when it’s time to live and when it’s time to die (Smith et al., 1992). Euthanasia is crucial in some circumstances, but the current worldview discourages the practice. Euthanasia helps patients overcome their fears and anguish among terminally ill patients.
Conclusion
Euthanasia is immoral and violates the right to life guaranteed in the Bible ad local legislation. Physicians and medical professionals provide lethal drugs and injections to patients that wish to procure euthanized procedures. Asian countries are against the legalization of euthanasia because of enhanced focus on focus and consideration. Euthanasia raises religious, moral, and legal obligations that cannot be ignored. The right to euthanasia must be afforded to patients only in their right state of mind. The liberal state must preserve life—patients who are unable to express their opinions in intelligent and rational ways because of their status. Besides, embracing the right to death with dignity disposes terminally of ill patients from society.
Arguments for euthanasia focus on the argument that life is precious. Dying without pain is considered honorable and promotes moral adequacy. Christianity provides that life is precious and only God can end life. Terminally ill patients face pain and suffering, which their medical conditions can elongate. In addition, physicians must take necessary steps to preserve the life and dignity of such patients. Terminally ill patients face pain and suffering, which their medical conditions can elongate. In addition, physicians must take necessary steps to preserve the life and dignity of such patients. Based on the analysis of these arguments, euthanasia is immoral and unacceptable in modern society.
References
Cayetano-Penman, J., Malik, G., & Whittall, D. (2021). Nurses’ Perception and Attitudes About Euthanasia: A Scoping Review. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0898010120923419
Chinweze, M.B. (2005). Euthanasia: A Critical Analysis of the Physician’s Role. http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:20257/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Christian Standard Bible. (2009). The Holy Bible.
Cohen-Almagor, R. (2015). An Argument for Physician-Assisted Suicide and Against Euthanasia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2015.10.011
Flight, M. (2017). Law, Liability, & Ethics for Medical Office Professionals. https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5760102456081257230054849110&eISBN=9781305972773&id=1640534326&snapshotId=3205121&
Fontalis, A., Prousali, E., & Kulkarni, K. (2018). Euthanasia and Assisted Dying: What is the Current Position and What are the Key Arguments Informing the Dabate? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2018, Volume 11 (11) p 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076818803452
Kalal, N. (2019). Review Article on Euthanasia. http://dx.doi.org/10.24941/ijcr.32801.11.2018
Kumar, A., Mehra, A., & Avasthi, A. (2021). Euthanasia: A Debate – For and Against. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research (2021). https://www.jpmer.com/doi/JPMER/pdf/10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1437
Lau, A.M., & Wong, E.L. (2022). Attitude Towards Euthanasia Among Medical Students; A Cross-Sectional Study in Hong Kong. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137697
Math, S.B., & Chaturvedi, S.K. (2012). Euthanasia: Right to Life vs Right to Die. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/pdf/IJMR-136-899.pdf
Rodriquez, E. (2001). The Arguments for Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Ethical Reflections. The Linacre Quarterly Volume 68, Issue No. 3. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=lnq
Smith, M.L., Orlowski, J., Radey, C., & Scofield, G. (1992). A Good Death: is Euthanasia the Answer? https://www.ccjm.org/content/ccjom/59/1/99.full.pdf
write