The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words: euth – “good” and thanatos – “death”. It means a conscious action leading to the death of a hopelessly suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way to stop incurable pain and suffering (Goligher et al. 150). Euthanasia, as a new method of the medical answer to the concern of death, enters the course of the current health care field under the influence of two major aspects. Firstly, the advancement of medicine under the influence of resuscitation development, which makes it feasible to prevent continuous suffering. Secondly, the shift in ethical prerogatives in current society, at the base of which is the conception of human rights importance, including peaceful end (Goligher et al. 150). However, this topic still leaves a lot of room for condemnation of the ethical side of the issue.
Active euthanasia is carried out at the request of a capable patient, who must be aware of all the risks. I believe that no person should suffer unbearable anguish for which there is no treatment. Some patients may not even have a family to continue this struggle with a deliberately disastrous outcome. At this point, I consider it crueler to look at the suffering than to try to ease the end of a patient’s life. The principle of patient autonomy and the obligation of the physician is one of the defining limitations of the ethical actions of the physician (Shaw 104). In a liberal understanding, euthanasia refers to a fundamental human right: the right to die if death is the only way to avoid suffering.
Euthanasia opponents say that using the terms “mercy” and “justice” to justify forced euthanasia is a recipe for possible social chaos. Such an assessment of euthanasia distinguishes not only Orthodoxy but any conservative position, including the opinion of specialists that dominated society 20 years ago. Socio-legal recognition of euthanasia will not save humanity from disease and suffering. At the heart of the euthanasia resistance is the Christian understanding of man and the influence of Hippocrates’ medical ethics (Westphal et al. 100). It unambiguously denies using the experience and knowledge of a doctor for the painless death of a patient.
Works Cited
Goligher, Ewan et al. “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the ICU: A Dialogue on Core Ethical Issues.” Critical care medicine vol. 45, 2017, pp.149-155. Doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001818
Shaw, A. “Two Challenges to the Double Effect Doctrine: Euthanasia and Abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2002, pp.102-104.
Westphal Euler, Nowak, Woryk, & Krenchinski Caciano (2019) “Of Philosophy, Ethics and Moral about Euthanasia: The Discomfort between Modernity and Postmodernity.” Clinical Medical Reviews and Case Reports, 2019. Doi: org/10.23937/2378-3656/1410270