Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a provision that allows caregivers and medical professionals to intervene on behalf of patients that choose to end their lives. Euthanasia is commonly reserved for patients that suffer from chronic conditions that have little to no hope of recovery. In some situations, patients may suffer from conditions that are too painful and would prefer to end their life instead of prolonging the inevitable. There are however those that oppose euthanasia on the claim that it is unethical as human beings are only tasked with the responsibility to preserve life. In his article ‘We have a right to die with dignity: The medical profession has a duty to assist’ the author Anton Van Niekerk (2016) argues that euthanasia should be allowed as it is a form of exercising one’s rights. Euthanasia should therefore be provided to patients who opt for it and have already been diagnosed with conditions that will eventually result in death.
Niekerk supports euthanasia on the grounds that it allows one to die with dignity. All human beings have the right to live with dignity and make choices that preserve their dignity. as such, people also have the right to choose to die if they reach a time in their life where living is either too painful or will inevitably result to death (Niekerk, 2012). In cases where medical treatments that seek to prolong an individual’s life cause pain or have a negative impact on their image, the individual has the right to request euthanasia as it would alleviate the pain and retain the dignity that the individual held on while still alive.
The author however places emphasis on the need to determine whether carrying out euthanasia is practical or not. In his argument, Niekerk points out that it is more ethical to perform euthanasia on an 85-year-old cancer patient than a 40-year-old man (Niekerk, 2012). his argument is based on the assumption that the elderly has already lived their life and chronic diseases only make their last moments unbearable. The younger generation however still has time to not only recover but manage their condition and have an impact on society following recovery.
An argument can be made against the use of euthanasia on the claim that no individual has the right to end another person’s life. Preserving people’s life is a common phenomenon in society and different religious groups, governments and individuals are against killing. Since euthanasia involves taking another person’s death prematurely, it can therefore be considered as murder, regardless of the events leading up to the decision to end another person’s life (Chatuvedi & Math, 2012). Those against euthanasia argue that mercy killing is still murder even when performed by professionals. Since doctors are often the ones who take on the responsibility of ending the patient’s life, arguments have been made that euthanasia is the opposite of the doctor’s Hippocratic oath. Doctors are tasked with the responsibility to preserve life. Since support for euthanasia is based on the idea that some patients are too sick or in too much pain to hold on for a natural death (Chatuverdi & Math, 2012). Taking the life of a patient, regardless of the medical conditions is a violation of the doctor’s oath as it requires doctors to take away a life rather than preserving it.
Another argument against euthanasia is that it denies people the chance to recover. The argument is based on the belief that medical conditions that warrant the use of euthanasia are also conditions that could be treated over time. often times, the decision to end the patient’s life is based on the patient’s condition and the hope for recovery. When patients suffer from serious conditions or encounter serious accidents, some treatments require the use of machines to keep the patient alive (Niekerk, 2012). The machines and treatment methods have the capability to sustain the individual until some form of recovery occurs or until the patient dies of natural courses. With advancements in the field of medicine, doctors keep discovering new ways to treat patients, it is possible that some medical conditions that are difficult or impossible to treat now can be treated in the future (Niekerk, 2012). Preserving the patients’ life is therefore applicable as it keeps the patient long enough for new discoveries to be made that could be implemented and help the patient recovers, something that would be impossible is euthanasia is carried out.
Although doctors should try to sustain the patient’s life, some occurrences require intervention that can only be determined by analysing the situation. The argument that taking a life for whatever reasons is murder fails to take into account the reasons leading up to the decision. Although doctors are expected to preserve life, they also have the experience and knowledge to make decisions that do not necessarily have the expected outcomes (Pappas, 2012). Similar to how doctors advice patients to get amputations to preserve their lives, euthanasia should be used as a solution to help patients that will in no way recover. The argument that keeping the patient alive in the hope that a new discovery to treat the patient is achieved also fails to consider the quality of life that the individual will live (Niekerk, 2012). Chronic conditions that require euthanasia are often unbearable and in cases like cancer or serious accidents, the innovation needed to remedy such conditions is years from being developed and it would be unethical to force patients to wait.
The debate around euthanasia is mainly because people focus more on the act rather than on the needs of the patients. While taking a life goes against the hypocritic oath and can be seen as murder, these conditions only arise in cases where the patient does not have a say in the matter. However, euthanasia involves the patients, caregivers and medical professionals who weigh in on the decision before allowing the patient or the caregivers to make the decision. Since some conditions will inevitably result in death, patients should be given the choice to end the suffering sooner and this is why euthanasia should be practised.
References
Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: right to life vs right to die. The Indian journal of medical research, 136(6), 899–902.
Niekerk A, (2016) “We have a right to die with dignity: The medical profession has a duty to assist” The Conversation, retrieved from, https://theconversation.com/we-have-a- right-to-die-with-dignity-the-medical-profession-has-a-duty-to-assist-67574
Pappas, D. (2012). The Euthanasia/Assisted-Suicide Debate. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
