What is euthanasia, and why is it considered to be morally different to murder or suicide? Is it?

Introduction

This report will seek to answer the question on what is euthanasia, and why is it considered to be morally different to murder or suicide? Euthanasia is a term that is utilized differently by most individuals. According to Rhee, et al (14) euthanasia is considered to be a subject of moral debates in the contemporary society. Euthanasia can best be described as the general act of ending an individual’s life without causing any pain for the reason of showing compassion (Carmichael 5). This act is to most regard as mercy killing despite the fact that its definition is a source of moral controversy. Euthanasia is considered morally different from suicide and murder based on the fact that it is conducted for some clinical and justified reasons for ending suffering to an ailing patient. On the other hand, suicide can best be described as the intentional ending of life while murder is more of a criminal conduct that best describes killing or ending a person’s life with the intention of causing pain and when self-defense is not needed (Carmichael 5). However, where active euthanasia is involved which is accounted as the deliberate killing of an individual by administering lethal doses, then that is accounted as murder and morally unjustified. Morally speaking, euthanasia is considered different to murder and suicide because, despite the fact that death is inevitable for all humans, critical suffering prior to death is intolerable not just for the fatally ailing patients but also for the family and friends.

Euthanasia to most is considered as the deliberate ending of an individual’s life. unlike assisted suicide Euthanasia normally involves mercy killing by permitting the suffering patients to die a rather natural death without the provision of clinical life support, where assisted suicide incorporate the use of an active but voluntary suicide machine (De-Beaufort and De-Vathorst 1464). The controversy of the issue lies on the ground that the terminally ailing are in most cases not in a position to state their wishes to die and thus a decision that seeks to end their pain and the psychological and financial anguish of the families is made on their behalf. Murder is a crime which has no moral justification given that it involves the brutal killing which is in most cases intentional without any justified reason or mercy involved. Assisted suicide is accounted as morally unethical on the ground that although the patient communicates their need to die, their death is usually painful and mainly incorporates denying them the needed medical assistance which would have been beneficial to their wellness (Carmichael 5).

Morally, healthcare has the obligation of ending suffering and pain to an ailing person by subjecting them to the most suitable treatment that would thus create wellness. In other words, Euthanasia and physician supported suicide are distinct subject (Math and Santosh 890). This is because there are numerous factors that play part such as the consideration of the intensity of suffering, the probability of survival and consciousness for making the voluntary choices for suicide or Euthanasia if needed. Murder is morally wrong because it is not just a crime but also a matter of making deliberate and destructive choices (Carmichael 6). In the current era, most individuals hold the agreement that rather than allowing an individual to suffer and they will ultimately die from the terminal disease allowing them to die without causing pain is an ethical choice. Assisted suicide is considered to be morally unjustified on the ground that it is practiced for selfish reasons. In that most patients tend to believe that they are a major burden to their families either psychologically or financially thus opting for immediate death which is unethical (Math and Santosh 890). The primary distinction amid physical supported suicide and euthanasia lies on the fact that one is an intentional technical death while the other is accounted as natural.

In my opinion, I do believe that the fact that death is inevitable makes Euthanasia morally accepted. On the other hand, given that physicians have a clinical responsibility of ensuring that they provide the needed medications to all patients as a form of ending their pain and ensuring that the occurring suffering is reduced (Rollin 1082). However, it is rather evident that even though euthanasia is morally different from suicide and murder because its intentions are to end pain and suffering both for the patient and family members, it is evident that the act can best be categorized as intentional killing because it involves the actual denial of treatment which ultimately results in the death of those that are involved (Banović, Veljko and Miloradović 173). In order for the death to be accounted as natural or unintentional then it must be as a result of the offered treatment that was believed helpful to the noted patient even though they were in a rather unhopeful situation. It is worth noting that, the diagnosis part of treatment has always been accounted with varying mistakes which means that the recommendations by the physician might not be the end as one the Euthanasia option is implemented the final outcome is only death thus the fact that the patient might recover from the illness is eliminated (Rollin 1082). The justification of euthanasia is derived from the fact that it is clinically connected and it is more focused on instilling mercy as the means of ending an individual pain which might not be recovered.

Suicide is considered to be unjust on the ground that it involves participating in ending an individual’s death which is similar to murder rather than permitting them to die naturally (Rollin 1083). Suicide has the tendency of created intense guilt on those that are involved and thus if there are no other means of relieving a terminally ailing patient from suffering then it is rather evident that the most humane alternative rather than conducting suicide would be euthanasia. Euthanasia is widely supported by the public and clinically because it leads to the ending of psychological and physical pain for those that are involved. This is thus considered to be a defensible killing of a terminally ailing person in instances that the patient is not able to make reasonable choices but the involved family can. Unlike the use of deadly approaches, Euthanasia is widely acknowledged and preferred because it is normally a gentle and painless approach. In most cases where euthanasia is applied, it is normally noted that the life of the patient ends by the injection of certain doses or withdrawing medication and life support systems to allow the patients to die (Math and Santosh 890). Most individuals that oppose euthanasia do so on the ground that it is rather a deliberate killing which is not natural since it is not certain that the patient will not survive.

Most believe and oppose the notion that euthanasia s morally distinct from murder or assisted suicide on the ground that it leads to deliberate killing by denying the patients the needed treatments (Banović, Veljko and Miloradović 173). In addition, it is held that if euthanasia becomes acceptable in the contemporary society then this would result in the loss of many innocent lives in general in the name of mercy killing. In that even though chronic illnesses once they reach the last phases are unpredictable and patients have usually subjected to unending pain it is rather apparent that ending their lives is a selfish choice that objects nature taking action on its own. Euthanasia is widely being used in the society today which is a result of technology advancement which despite being a source of hope to most by offering treatment options has proved to be a source of controversy (Rollin 1084).

In conclusion, euthanasia is considered morally different from assisted suicide or murder because it is intended to end suffering to terminally ailing patients. In that euthanasia causes no pain but leads to the death of the involved patients which is accounted to be a natural but intentional death that is aimed at creating relief. Euthanasia is a form of a modern clinical alternative that exists for chronically ailing persons in instances where medical treatment is not beneficial or where death is the only existing option. I believe that euthanasia is morally different because it is intended to end pain and is conducted in a more lethal manner that accounts for the level of the patient’s pain, ailment as well as clinical alternatives. However, the approach is only justified only when used with the consent of the patient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Banović, Božidar, Veljko Turanjanin, and Anđela Miloradović. “An Ethical Review of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Iranian Journal of Public Health 46.2 (2017): 173–179. Print.

Carmichael, Hannah. Euthanasia: Is it ethically and Morally Acceptable. Diss. 2016.

De Beaufort, Inez D., and Suzanne van de Vathorst. "Dementia and assisted suicide and euthanasia." Journal of neurology 263.7 (2016): 1463-1467.

Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K. Chaturvedi. “Euthanasia: Right to Life vs Right to Die.” The Indian Journal of Medical Research 136.6 (2012): 899–902. Print.

Rhee, John Y., et al. "Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Is Incompatible With Medicine: A Response from Medical Students." Critical care medicine 45.6 (2017): e626-e627.

Rollin, Bernard E. “Ethics and Euthanasia.” The Canadian Veterinary Journal 50.10 (2009): 1081–1086. Print.