Euthanizing Handicapped People | Free Essay Example

Euthanizing Handicapped People

Words: 568
Topic: Sociology
Updated:

The most fundamental right of every human being is the right to life. Consequently, care should be taken to ensure that every person lives until he or she dies naturally. However, there may come a time when a person’s life will become a burden to society.

In such a scenario, people consider giving the personal option of terminating his or her life. In other instances, people may become handicapped to the extent of being incapable of making decisions. These people continue living just because their relatives are supported. In this regard, for a long time, people have been debating on whether to legalize euthanasia for handicapped people or not. It is paramount to note that euthanasia is immoral, and it goes against human laws.

While arguing whether to euthanize handicapped people or not, it should not escape our minds that they are human beings. Life is life, and one cannot argue that the life of a handicapped person is lesser than that of a healthy person. Every religion exhorts its followers not to kill. Moreover, killing is illegal in every country. In this regard, euthanizing handicapped people is tantamount to murder. People should be left to die their own natural death.

On the same note, legalizing euthanasia will give way to a lot of illegal murders. There are very many handicapped people who are alive just because people in society have not found a chance to kill them. However, the moment euthanasia is made legal; these handicapped people will be at the mercy of their relatives.

The elderly people will also be victims, given that they are also dependent on society. On the same note, it would be rather difficult to determine whether one consented to euthanasia before the procedure was administered. Similarly, doctors being human beings can be bribed to carry out euthanasia even when necessary conditions are not met.

Notably, the Hippocratic Oath that medical professionals take requires from them to act for the good of their patient and not to give them a deadly prescription. In other words, it encourages doctors to do everything in their power to ensure that patients live.

It could be ironical that doctors who are supposed to ensure that people live for as long as possible are the same ones who take lives away. Furthermore, if one is in extreme pain, there are alternatives other than euthanasia available. Palliative care is so advanced nowadays that pain, as well as other symptoms, can be adequately managed. Therefore, it makes no sense to take one’s life.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that death is imminent, and no one can avoid it. Proponents of euthanasia argue that there comes a time when a condition of a patient becomes critical, and no matter what doctors do, the patient cannot get better. When a patient goes into a permanent vegetative condition, doctors can only use machines to make them survive. However, they cannot improve the quality of life of the patient or even get them out of that condition.

According to them, continuity of life of the patient deprives society of the minimal economic resources available, but no value comes out of it because the patient eventually dies. It should be noted that in these cases, only active treatment should be stopped so that the patient dies a natural death but not use this as an excuse for euthanasia. Euthanasia is totally wrong and immoral.