Euthanasia is a terminally ill person’s death, performed at his request with the help of a doctor and certain drugs. This procedure causes a lot of debate around itself about its ethics and the possibility of existence. Opponents of the method argue that no one has the right to take another person’s life as such actions reduce its value. Euthanasia is a form of suicide and means the legalization of this phenomenon, which has been condemned for centuries. Moreover, the possibility of intentional abuse of such an action cannot be ruled out. However, those who support the possibility of euthanasia have their own persuasive arguments. Euthanasia will preserve the incurable patients’ autonomy allowing them to make their own choices while removing the moral and economic burden from relatives and controlling actions that are already happening in some hospitals illegally.
It is impossible to take away from the patient his autonomy, the right to dispose of his or her life and make decisions independently. With the development of new technologies and science, human life has become much longer, and people meet new diseases that would lead to quick death a hundred years ago. Doctors, nurses, and support can prolong heavy patients’ lives for a long time. However, not always an artificially supported life is good: sometimes, the patient cannot even eat independently. Therefore, if a person has the right and opportunity to live as long as possible, there should be the right to cease such an extended existence, since in some cases, it only causes suffering. The goal of euthanasia is not to end a person’s life, but to stop torment, and pain.
With euthanasia, a terminally ill person can help their relatives to survive grief faster and easier. At the same time, the patients save a family from the burden of caring for them, and themselves from the torment of conscience because they take many strength and time. Moreover, the economic factor plays a vital role in this matter. Although money should not be the main thing in a person’s life, it still has a significant impact. The treatment and maintenance of incurable patients require a lot of funds from relatives and the state.
There is another argument: it is better to resolve and carefully control than to keep under ban what is still happening. It is not uncommon for doctors to arbitrarily kill a non-viable patient, wanting to relieve him of her suffering. By the will of the patient or not, it is impossible to establish as a rule. For example, in 2018, it was discovered that the intensive care doctor William Husel, gave some of his patients a hefty dose of painkillers, thereby causing their death. Over three years, he killed nearly 27 near-death patients in this way (Viviano and Sullivan). Although such cases do not occur often, they are still there and are difficult to trace.
Thus, the main arguments of euthanasia opponents are based on the fact that life is a good and higher value. However, life is a pleasure when it is meaningful, and suffering does not outweigh enjoyment from it. To avoid abuse of this procedure, clear rules and terms must be established, but incurable patients should have a chance of making such a decision. Freedom of choice will allow a person to maintain his or her dignity and leave this life on their own terms.
Work Cited
Viviano, JoAnne, and Lucas Sullivan. “Cases of Health-Care Providers Intentionally Harming Patients are Rare.” The Columbus Dispatch, 2019, Web.