Introduction
Overview
Currently, innovation in medical science enables both life and death to be stretched (Biggs, 2001). Owing to this, a number of concerns about life and death in the society have been raised. Now, it is widely believed that modern-day medicine can force individuals to bear life past what they perceive to be decorous limits. Statistical facts upheld the popular views that some physicians may employ undue interventions to extend the lives of terminally sick individuals (Biggs, 2001).
Physicians usually undergo through dilemmas when trying to offer suitable care and at the same time value the patients’ autonomy (Biggs, 2001). Despite the fact that the alternatives to the physicians accountable for the choices are firmly illustrated by the law, the patients and their families usually query the medical choices provided to the terminally ill. The above illustration indicates that the legal system should work hand in hand with the healthcare shareholders in distinguishing the limits between the patients’ rights and the physicians’ accountability based on the possible life-limiting treatment choices (Biggs, 2001).
Defining euthanasia
Definition of euthanasia
The capability to prolong life, regardless of the suffering and terminal illness, has led to a number of individuals calling for the right to pass on with dignity other than bear the apparent indignity of a reliant life (Dracobly, 2005). With respect to current heated debates, the relationship between euthanasia and dying with dignity exemplify the up to date stress on self-determination as an illustration of personal independence. Euthanasia in its diverse form is an approach regularly endorsed as a way of accomplishing autonomy and arriving at death with respect. Nevertheless, whether dignity can be attained through the approach relies on personal situations of the individual case and how the approach is defined.
Generally, euthanasia refers to a good demise. The current perception of the expression means the bringing about of trouble-free and mild death with regard to the terminally ill patients (Dracobly, 2005). It should be noted that the classifications of euthanasia rely on the difference between active and passive responses that are initiated in relation to the way through which death is undertaken and the lawful perception of the procedure and the lapse.
definition of physician-assisted suicide
On the other hand, physician-assisted suicide refers to self-immolation by a terminally ill individual made possible by acquisition of information such as drug recommendation or suggestion of the fatal dosage from a medical doctor who is informed of how the individual aims to make use of the information (Dracobly, 2005).
Types of euthanasia
Active euthanasia
Euthanasia can be categorized into a number of forms. Active euthanasia refers to a situation where a medical doctor purposely procures the patient’s demise. Voluntary active euthanasia is procured at the request of a terminally ill patient. Non-voluntary active euthanasia happens if the terminally ill patient is unconscious or not capable of coming up with a significant decision between life and death, and a suitable individual proposes the choice on their behalf. As such, non-voluntary euthanasia comprises of situations where the patient is a minor and psychologically unable to come up with sound decisions.
Passive euthanasia
On the other hand, passive euthanasia refers to situations where physicians do not purposely procure the patient’s demise. When procuring passive euthanasia, a physician causes death by avoiding intervention required to prolong life.
Pros and cons
Pros
According to the proponents of euthanasia, everyone has a right to decide when to die (Cavan, 2000). The proponents argue that as long as the patient make informed and apparent intention to terminate his or her life the right should be respected. Just as the above proponents, some human right activists argue that advocating for euthanasia is appropriate because decisions about death are elements of life itself.
Equally, libertarians argue for euthanasia because they believe that the choice to request for support in dying causes no damage to the state or other individuals (Cavan, 2000). According to these individuals, euthanasia works in the best interest of the state and the terminally ill patient’s family by offering reprieve (Cavan, 2000). Shortage of medical support is an additional argument that upholds euthanasia. Concerning terminally ill patients, the use of limited medical resources and services is costly usually for extended periods. The above implies that managing the terminally ill for an extended period robs those who may live well under similar prospects (Biggs, 2001).
Cons
Those who oppose euthanasia argue that by engaging in the approach physicians have illustrated that some lives are less valuable compared with others (Healey, 2002). According to these opponents, life is a gift of nature and should not be artificially terminated. Individuals who suppose that appropriate sedative care makes euthanasia needless uphold scientific arguments contrasting the practice. With the improvement of medical science, medications and management of sickness are being developed at a very fast pace (Healey, 2002). Therefore, by procuring euthanasia there are possibilities that medics are depriving the patients with opportunities to survive when interventions are discovered in the future.
Another disadvantage associated with the practice is that if advocated for the physicians may misuse it (Healey, 2002). Considered that the practice may be misused particularly in the situations of an infant and mentally challenged patient is a concern to be addressed. Equally, if the practice is adopted, issues concerning ethics would arise. It would be difficult to establish how ethical the practice can be or who should authorize the practice (Healey, 2002). Similarly, issues with respect to how the practice should be undertaken and regulated will arise. With all these concerns, the practice would attract numerous criticisms.
Similarly, the practice is against a number of religious principles. For instance, a number of Christian denominations, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism oppose the practice (Smith, 2007). According to the religious groups, life is only given and terminated by a supreme deity. It should be noted that some denominations are more liberal to the practice. For instance, the Anglican and the Methodist endorse the practice as long as the legal system and the appropriate procedures are adhered to the letter (Biggs, 2001).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be noted that euthanasia has attracted numerous heated debates among the physicians, the members of the public, legal systems, and religious groups. Because of this, a number of calls for lawful restructuring to authorize euthanasia and assisted death have been made. The above illustration indicate that the legal system should work hand in hand with the healthcare shareholders in distinguishing the limits between the patients’ rights and the physicians’ accountability based on the possible life-limiting treatment choices (Biggs, 2001).
References
Biggs, H. (2001). Euthanasia, death with dignity, and the law. Oxford: Hart Publ..
Cavan, S. (2000). Euthanasia: the debate over the right to die. New York: Rosen Pub.Group.
Dracobly, A. (2005). A merciful end: The euthanasia movement in modern America; ‘Merciful release’: The history of the British euthanasia movement. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(3), 287-289.
Healey, J. (2002). The euthanasia debate. Rozelle, N.S.W.: Spinney Press.
Smith, S. W. (2007). Empirical research in the debate on physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Clinical Ethics, 2(3), 129-132.