Euthanasia is a medical practice of ending the life of a suffering patient with the injection of barbiturate or paralytic. Assisted death is legal in the majority of the European Union countries, Colombia, and several American states. However, the countries where euthanasia is legal are in the minority. Indeed, this medical practice is immensely contradictory and raises a wide range of ethical issues. The current essay discusses the argument for and against euthanasia from an ethical point of view.
The critical argument in favor of euthanasia is that it is a way to make a person who suffers from an incurable disease die in dignity and free of the pain. What is more, this death will be peaceful, and a patient could die surrounded by the nearest and dearest instead of writhing in agony caused by pain that could no longer be reduced with painkillers. Veterinarians can euthanize an animal if it cannot be cured. At the same time, human beings have no choice but to suffer even if they also cannot be healed. From this perspective, euthanasia should be practiced because it is humane and helps escape a patient’s suicide.
Secondly, the concept of euthanasia implies that a patient decides on his or her life. For example, it is up to every individual to decide whether to put a coronavirus vaccine, take medicines prescribed by a doctor and follow the recommendation. Furthermore, patients are obliged to sign a consent for operation or treatment. In other words, in all these situations, people have a right to manage their lives and health independently.
However, when it comes to how and when to end the life, they become deprived of this right and forced to suffer in anticipation of death. Besides, to some extent, euthanasia resembles suicide because it is a patient who decides whether he or she wants to live or not. This comparison leads to the following contradiction: suicide is not unlawful, while, in the majority of countries, euthanasia is while in both cases, a person makes an independent choice to end the life.
The opponents of euthanasia argue that this medical procedure diminishes the value of human life. The study conducted by Parmar et al. (2016) shows that opponents believe that a “person should be kept alive as long as possible regardless of his age, disease, disabilities and personal preferences” (p. 21). Interestingly enough, they use the same case of mercy killings of animals that were mentioned in the second paragraph of the paper as an argument in favor of euthanasia. From this point of view, the precious lives of conscious people are equated to the lives of pets deprived of conscience.
Furthermore, suppose doctors are allowed to assist the death of patients. In that case, that might decrease the quality of care provided to terminally ill patients because, undoubtedly, it is cheaper to kill a person than to provide proper palliative care. Additionally, some practitioners might use euthanasia to manipulate patients and their families. Overall, the ethical arguments against the legalization of euthanasia stress the value of human lives and the obligation of medical personnel to do their best to cure patients.
To conclude, it is hard to come to a common view on euthanasia because arguments for and against it are equally persuasive. Nonetheless, the fact that mercy killing of people is forbidden in most countries shows that the global community is not ready to reconcile with it. Still, the ban on euthanasia has given rise to such a phenomenon as suicide tourism in countries where euthanasia is legal. Probably, the debates on euthanasia remain topical because the arguments against it are put forward by healthy people whose family members and friends do not endure unbearable physical pain that could be relieved only through death.
Reference
Parmar, P., Rathod, S., & Parikh, A. (2016). Perceptions of patients towards euthanasia–A medico-legal perspective. International Association of Infant Massage, 20(12), 21-30.