Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Introduction

Euthanasia is the ending of life intentionally through deliberate approaches. The action is undertaken to refrain a victim from what can be termed as intractable suffering (Calati et al., 2021). The issue is associated with various morality and ethics such as having a consent or no consent from a victim. On the other hand, assisted suicide is the ending of the life of a patient by a doctor at their own consent or request. Assisted suicide happens as per an individual own desires. During this action, a doctor has to incorporate the required approach and skills, such as drugs, to enable its completion. Both assisted suicide and euthanasia possess similar ethical and moral repercussions or requirements.

The Issue

A times, an individual life can be terminated without consent, whereby can be termed as a lack of explicit request from the victim. Still, this kind of ethics of life has similar moral and ethical consequences as euthanasia. Studies support euthanasia, whereby it is done to an individual who might have having incurable condition or even a terminal disease. Euthanasia is performed through painless means or equipment to the person who is not showcasing the possibility of lifelines. It is important to note that euthanasia is only performed for people who might be suffering from intense pain or suffering, or their condition might not be curable at the moment. On the other hand, assisted suicide comes as advice from the physician to patients on a request to terminate their lives through the right drug and equipment.

The Argument

Some proponents support that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be allowed to the patients. The supporters state that there is some point at which assisted suicide or euthanasia can be applied. These individuals argue that people are supposed to end their lives in painless manners to preserve human respect and dignity (Castelli et al., 2021). And these victims are supposed to ask for help if they cannot do it by themselves. They state that individuals possess rights to what should be done to their bodies. Therefore, they state it to be wrong if another person prevents them from ending of life personal decision. It is a violation of human rights and freedom to force people into living when they do not want to. Still, when it comes to ethics and moral issues, they state it as being immoral to allow people to live under extreme pain and suffering.

In various nations, suicide is not a crime. Thus, proponents of euthanasia also support that it should not be criminalized. Other people oppose the action by stating it is against their religious beliefs. These people argue that God is the giver of life and should be the taker (Castelli et al., 2021). In this scenario, no human being, no matter their professional, is supposed to decide on taking another person’s life. Other individuals state that if euthanasia is legalized, people will abuse the deed in such that there will be killing of innocent lives whereby people who are not supposed to be killed will end up being victims.

Many nations have stood with the action as being illegal. However, there have been many scenarios in the same nations whereby physicians have carried the action. One of the nations that has illegalized the action is Great Britain, where euthanasia has been termed manslaughter or murder. Still, if anyone is caught having done the act is deemed to be imprisoned. Still, the people in the authorities might refute taking action upon analyzing the situation that led to the deliberate killing. Still, many legal authorities and activities have indulged in movement in support of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

This moral and ethical argument can also be looked at philosophically. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy argues in terms of what can be termed to be right or wrong on the basis of human dignity and respect (Grove, Lovell & Best, 2022). It is important for a human being to apply reasoning before executing their will. In this support, the deliberate killing of a person should be seen as suicide, as it goes beyond being humane. Therefore, it is not right to indulge in euthanasia, even if it is given with individual consent, and if so, it should be termed as suicide. It is immoral for an individual to not have personal dignity and choose to commit suicide through euthanasia.

On the other hand, philosophy of the kind, like John Stuart utilitarianism, purports that morality and ethics can be supported in terms of the level of happiness and a majority point of view (Popa, 2020). It is seen that people will be happy when the right action is taken and vice versa if the wrong is undertaken. For instance, if euthanasia inflicts more happiness, then it can be justified by utilitarianism. In these circumstances, the victim of pain or suffering will be able to rest in peace, and still, it will release the pressure exerted on his relatives in terms of emotional and even financial support.

Objections and Questions

The most disturbing moral and ethical question concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide is if the victim suffering from intractable suffering has the right to consent to the termination of their life. The issues revolve around when and how the termination should be imposed. As per the studies there exist various questions and objectives (Grove, Lovell & Best, 2022). One of the questions is if it should be legal to terminate an individual life for a person suffering from a terminal illness or undergoing severe pain. Still, some people might consent to end their lives even when in pain by refusing medication that might cure them. Is it moral to refuse medication in the name of excruciating suffering and dying to end their own life in support of human rights and freedom?

Still, should it be legal or rather, is it legal to request a third party to end an individual life? There is also another objection that questions if there should be another person who can offer consent to taking their own life, such as a close relative. Another prevailing question is whether the law should support euthanasia or assisted suicide for people in extreme pain and suffering.

Conclusion

Clearly, both euthanasia and assisted suicide should be morally judged from personal decisions. It is seen that deliberate suicide, when in pain or a terminal condition, utilitarianism takes over, and it is good to support what is right and something that will bring more pressure and happiness to the majority. As seen from the essay, there are both proponents and opponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Some state as being inhumane and going against the law, some state as being able to save an individual from intractable suffering. Still, some people argue that it should be open as some people might abuse the deed by killing innocent or rather other people without consent or who might not be under such conditions as pain.

References

Calati, R., Olié, E., Dassa, D., Gramaglia, C., Guillaume, S., Madeddu, F., & Courtet, P. (2021). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in psychiatric patients: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of psychiatric research, 135, 153-173.

Castelli Dransart, D. A., Lapierre, S., Erlangsen, A., Canetto, S. S., Heisel, M., Draper, B., … & Wyart, M. (2021). A systematic review of older adults’ request for or attitude toward euthanasia or assisted-suicide. Aging & mental health, 25(3), 420-430.

Grove, G., Lovell, M., & Best, M. (2022). Perspectives of major world religions regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide: A comparative analysis. Journal of religion and health, 61(6), 4758-4782.

Popa, M. F. (2020). The subversive effect of utilitarianism on the right to life in EU countries. JL & Admin. Sci., 14, 77.