Right to life is not inclusive of the right to die even though Life and death are Siamese twins held at the hip. Euthanasia stands on shaky moral grounds often leading to endless debates whenever the issue comes up. The endless controversies surrounding whether the right to life is inclusive of death is a global issue rubbed the wrong way by the human society as a whole. Interesting enough, heavily populated countries such as India do not have readily available statistics indicating the quantity of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide appeals in the country, which would help point out the stand of the society on the issue. This essay will carry out a comprehensive discussion on reasons why euthanasia should be illegal and assess the public attitude people towards the act, which will in turn help, unveil why euthanasia is unfavorable. By supporting details and evidence, I will determine why physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is wrong and why alternative methods need to be embraced in the end of life care.
The legalization of euthanasia is synonymous to assisting suicide. Voluntary euthanasia takes place when a patient requests termination of his or her life due to a terminal medical condition. However, there are some basic issues on the subject on either side. There are well-structured arguments supporting euthanasia (Boudreau et.al, 3). Supporters claim that euthanasia frees patients from suffering and gives the patient authority over their life and any paternalistic invasion. Moreover, advocates purport that giving permission to a small number of people to undergo euthanasia under the right controlled environmental conditions was harmless. If it remains illegal, the advocates fear that some dubious and secrets means would emerge to facilitate euthanasia.
On the other hand, opponents claim that it would shift the moral compass of societies and normalize murder. Hence, it would unveil a series of serious uncontainable consequences in the society. In other words, any benefits derived from euthanasia would not outweigh the negative consequences (Boudreau et.al, 2). Even if the government legalizes euthanasia, under certain contexts and allow medical experts to partake in it, it would violate their moral code and role as healers in the society. In summary, physicians would go against their integrity when they participate in euthanasia.
The issue of euthanasia presents a dilemma in the criminal law. The values and virtues that drive humanity cannot allow the legalization of euthanasia. First of all, the constitution allows for the right to life for each person. Safeguarding life is fundamental for any rules to take root in the society. Indeed as Hobbs confirmed, the protection of life pivots the core reason and functionality of any laws. Thus, defending human life takes into consideration people who suffer from terminal illnesses or genomic deformations. The only dilemma is whether a person who perpetrates mercy killing becomes a murderer or not. The law does not permit taking a person’s life, even though the motive may not be for personal gain. The bottom line is that there is no good enough reason to kill a person (Anderson 1). Furthermore, the law does not recognize mercy killing and the elements pertaining the issue cannot naturally fit into the constitution. In fact, the law does not give room for motive as part of homicide. Therefore, if the court proves that a defendant perpetrated a murder, it is first degrees murder.
Accepting euthanasia shakes down the sacredness of life. Euthanasia has a pendulum effect on critical communal issues such as whether a fetus during its early stages is an actual being. As absurd as it may seem, a patient with a terminal illnesses has a right to life and completely human (Boudreau et.al, 2). The sacredness of human life does not stem from religious perspectives or opinion but the need to value life, regardless of the medical state in which it exists. Advocates of euthanasia suggest that life is priceless but also bring forth another flipside of the argument. Ending the life an individual suffering from a painful sickness, brings respect to human life. Dying with respect sanctifies life. Thus, the contentious issues revolving around euthanasia continue to evoke endless debates and sometimes the advocates cross the line. However, it is vital to note that quality of life has no connection with sanctity. Consequently, between quality and sanctity, the sacredness of life outweighs the quality of life. Viewing the argument in terms of quality of life, it actually implies that people with a low quality lifestyle deserve to die. Maintaining the same line of thought means that individuals with a quality life have more right to live than their counterpart does.
For instance, the right to sell oneself to slavery is not a well thought-out action. Neither is the right to end your own life due to the scourging effects of a terminal illness (Boudreau 1). A physician in a resource limited medical facility, the insurance institution, emotionally drained relatives attached to the patient may find euthanasia attractive once it becomes a viable option tabled in front of them (Boudreau et.al, 2). Therefore, removing the option of death, gives medical experts and insurance institutions the right to fight against terminal illness and find creative ways of preserving the will of life.
Of course, the other side of the argument might claim there are better ways of going about euthanasia. For example, some people may suggest that psychiatrists and doctors might assess a patient and confirm whether the person is of sound mind before acting upon their decision (Warraich 1). Nevertheless, the above context applies only to people with a terminal illness or others who want to end life. Although their reasons seem valid, they are not justifiable to the humanity and society. Therefore, no one has power to give a go ahead for the procedure used in the elimination. Thus, euthanasia would open an entire Pandora box of controversies if the government allows pain and suffering to be the main determinants of euthanasia. Once voluntary euthanasia becomes normal, it would spread to palliative care patients. Any tome dick and harry would request the procedure once medical finances dwindle.
Proponents of euthanasia may propose that the practice already exists in many various forms and doctors and other healthcare providers conduct it all the time without fear and that the media has no clue (Byock, 1). More so, legalizing it would open more secure ways for practicing the deed. Thus, accepting the procedure is likely to prevent its misuse and corruptions that often accompanies it. In other words, legalizing euthanasia would avail guidelines and prevent misuse of the procedure.
People have a right to live their lives as they please. There are many public attitudes toward euthanasia (Byock, 1). Surveys show that there is not enough support for euthanasia. Literature reviews on the topic show that more than two third of American do not support both euthanasia and regulations that accompany the procedure. Politically speaking, legislators hesitate on the issue because they might lose votes.
Surveys that monitor trends speculate that physicians do not easily accept a patient’s plea for euthanasia. In addition, there is a rising concern that people might exploit the poor and the old if euthanasia becomes legal (Warraich 1). Poverty stricken people may see death as an option when faced with heavy medical bills. Religion plays a major role in shaping the thoughts of people on the issue. In a country like India, where 90% of the population is Indian, the dominant faiths are Hindu and Islam. Hence, euthanasia faces a stiff opposition due to the religious beliefs.
Two approaches inhibit the legalization of euthanasia. The first line of thought seem to derive its main argument from the a religious perspective which claims that people are made by God and their value is priceless and no one should interfere with the sacredness that comes from life. Thus, euthanasia goes against personal dignity of life. With religion comes the ethical side of euthanasia, which makes physicians take a stand against euthanasia. On the other hand, the rhetorical nature of the subject matter tends to excite and elicit emotions rather solve the underlying issue (Byock, 1). For instance, let us consider a context where one withholds treatment from a person suffering from a terminal illness, when the treatment does not make a difference and the treatment itself has a negative toll on the patient, the context is a weighty matter but euthanasia is weightier. Another subtle element is discernment. A terminally ill individual does not have the ability to make sound decisions. In summary, legalizing euthanasia stands on shaky ground and may be a go-ahead button that would permit myriad of crimes. More so, regulating the act is a tedious task.
Works cited
Boudreau, J. D., Margaret A. Somerville, and Nikola Biller-Andorno. "Clinical decisions. Physician-assisted suicide." The New England journal of medicine 368.15 (2013): 1450-1452 https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMclde1302615.
Byock, Ira. “Doctors Shouldn’t be ending lives.” sandiegouniontribune.com.2015 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-doctors-shouldnt-be-ending-lives-2015may02-htmlstory.html
Boudreau, J Donald. “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Can You Even Imagine Teaching Medical Students How to End Their Patients’ Lives? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267569/
Anderson, Ryan. "Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Always Wrong. ." Newsweek.com https://www.newsweek.com/physician-assisted-suicide-always-wrong-317042
Warraich, Haider. “On Assisted Suicide, Going Beyond ‘Do No Harm’ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/on-assisted-suicide-going-beyondWarraic
