Culture basically shapes the manner in which people view illness, misery, and dying. With the ever-increasing diversity all over the world, especially in America, multicultural interactions between patients and medical caregivers of various backgrounds are becoming common phenomena (Aramesh, & Shadi, 2007). As a result, the risk for multicultural misinterpretation concerning health upkeep at the end of life is on the rise. Researches revealed existing variances in approaches toward truth telling, life lengthening technology and decision-making mechanisms at the end of life. This paper will carry out an in-depth analysis on both ethical and cultural perspectives on underlying reasons Muslim culture and religion do not permit end of life option. In addition, the essay will single out power, finances, and control matters surrounding the termination of life or euthanasia and all other aspects surrounding the topic.
Passing away with dignity regulations permit a terminally ill patient to accelerate an unavoidable death (Brockopp, 2008). While many faith customs observe ancient customs and insights concerning the final steps before one’s life come to an end, advancement in technology made it possible for religious people to reexamine some philosophies. Death and dignity laws give people a chance to contemplate a vital question pertaining their life.
Muslims are against euthanasia or aided death. Muslims believe that all human life is holy and comes from God or Allah and Allah is the only person who has the right to take or preserve life. Mortal beings have no right to interrupt the natural course of life. Hence ending life is a not an option for Muslims and prohibited among members. Medical doctors should not take an active role in the termination of a patient’s life (Naseh, Rafiei, & Heidari, 2015). According to the Qur’an, no person has the right to take another individual’s life except while seeking justice.
Just like any other religion, death is a vital aspect of Muslim religion. Strict Muslim believers do not support resuscitation as they claim it is a form of euthanasia, strictly prohibited within Muslim circles (Lippert et.al, 2010). A Muslim cannot commit murder or take part in it in any way. In addition, Islamic code governing ethics maintains that even if a person is in a vegetative state, the role of a medical doctor is maintaining or sustaining life.
Accepting the end of life option shakes down the sacredness of life according to most Muslims. End of life option 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. 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 (Moss et.al, 2010). 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 end of life option 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. In short, Muslims scholars support their argument from all angles: legalistic, social, and religious angles.
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. A physician in a resource limited medical facility, the insurance institution, emotionally drained relatives attached to the patient may find the option of ending attractive once it becomes a viable option tabled in front of them (Yousuf, & Fauzi, 2012). 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 assisted suited option. 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 (Aramesh, & Shadi, 2007). 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, end of life option would open an entire Pandora box of controversies if the government allows pain and suffering to be the main determinants of euthanasia. Once voluntary ending of life becomes normal, it would spread to palliative care patients. Any tome dick and harry would request the procedure once medical finances dwindle.
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 (Lippert et.al, 2010). 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, assisted suicide would open an entire Pandora box of controversies if the government allows pain and suffering to be the main determinants of euthanasia. Once voluntary assisted suicide becomes normal, it would spread to palliative care patients. Any tom dick and harry would request the procedure once medical finances dwindle.
Proponents of ending life option 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 (Moss et.al, 2010). 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 end of life option (Naseh, Rafiei, & Heidari, 2015). Surveys show that there is not enough support for end of life option. 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 termination of life. In addition, there is a rising concern that people might exploit the poor and the old if end of life option becomes legal (Brockopp, 2008). 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, end of life option faces a stiff opposition due to the religious beliefs.
Two tactics inhibit the legalization of end of life option. 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 ad no one should interfere with the sacredness that comes from life. Thus, end of life option goes against personal dignity of life. With religion comes the ethical side of end of life option, which makes physicians take a stand against it. On the other hand, the rhetorical nature of the subject matter tends to excite and elicit emotions rather solve the underlying issue (Brockopp, 2008). 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 termination of life 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.
Reference
Aramesh, K., & Shadi, H. (2007). Euthanasia: an Islamic ethical perspective.
Brockopp, J. E. (2008). Islam and bioethics: Beyond abortion and euthanasia. Journal of Religious Ethics, 36(1), 3-12.
Lippert, F. K., Raffay, V., Georgiou, M., Steen, P. A., & Bossaert, L. (2010). European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 10. The ethics of resuscitation and end-of-life decisions. Resuscitation, 81(10), 1445.
Moss, A. H., Lunney, J. R., Culp, S., Auber, M., Kurian, S., Rogers, J., ... & Abraham, J. (2010). Prognostic significance of the “surprise” question in cancer patients. Journal of palliative medicine, 13(7), 837-840.
Naseh, L., Rafiei, H., & Heidari, M. (2015). Nurses' attitudes towards euthanasia: a cross-sectional study in Iran. International journal of palliative nursing, 21(1), 43-48.
Yousuf, R. M., & Fauzi, A. R. (2012). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review from Islamic Point of View. International Medical Journal Malaysia, 11(1).
