Argument in Favor of Euthanasia Essay
1913 Words8 Pages
Introduction Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death.…show more content…
On the other hand, voluntary euthanasia is described as a situation in which the critically ill patient requests from someone else to help them die. They may either influence someone to assist them in suicide, or refuse life-saving medical treatment (Ramabele, 2004).
Euthanasia and the Elderly Population When it comes to people’s attitudes towards euthanasia, age has a very strong impact. According to Brogden, elderly, terminally ill individuals are considered vulnerable. They might be short of the ability and understanding of lessening the pain of their symptoms, and could experience apprehension regarding the future and what the consequences of their illness are (Blank et al, 2001). The elderly individual’s decision making about euthanasia may just be because of confusion, depression, dementia, or a number of other symptoms, however, these could all be relieved with suitable treatment and support (Blank et al, 2001).
However, great pressure is experienced by elderly people to request euthanasia because many of them already feel a burden to their families and caregivers (Brogden, 2001). Individuals may argue that although medical technology can preserve their life, the financial burden and pain that is endured could be so immense that it would be better off for the family, society, and even the patient them self if they choose to die (Black
Free Essays brought to you by 123HelpMe.com
Euthanasia is Inherently Wrong
My impression is that the idea of euthanasia, if not the practice, is
gradually gaining acceptance within our society. People like Jack Kevorkian
attribute this to an increasing inclination to devalue human life, but I do not
believe that this is the major factor. The acceptance of euthanasia is much
more likely to be the result of unthinking sympathy and benevolence. It is an
easy step from this very human response to the view that if someone would be
better off dead, then it must be right to kill that person. Although I respect
the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe that this conclusion is
wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong. It is inherently wrong, but
it is also wrongly judged from the standpoints of self-interest and of practical
Before presenting my arguments, it would be well to define "euthanasia".
An essential aspect of euthanasia is that it involve taking a human life. Also,
the person whose life is taken must be someone who is believed to be suffering
from an incurable disease or injury from which recovery cannot reasonably be
expected. Finally the action must be deliberate and intentional. Therefore
euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person.
It is important to be clear about the deliberate and intentional aspect
of the killing. If a hopeless person is given an injection of the wrong drug by
mistake and this causes his/her death, this is wrongful killing but not
euthanasia. The killing cannot be the result of an accident. In addition, if
the person is given an injection of a drug that is believed to be necessary to
treat their disease or better their condition and the person dies as a result,
then this is neither wrongful killing nor euthanasia. The intention was to make
the patient well, not kill them.
Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living. Our
reflexes and responses fit us to fight attackers, flee wild animals, and dodge
out of the way of trucks. In our daily lives we exercise caution and care
necessary to protect ourselves. Our bodies are similarly structured for
survival right down to the molecular level. When we are cut, our capillaries
seal shut, our blood clots, and fibrogen is produced to start the process of
healing the wound. When we are invaded by bacteria, antibodies are produced to
fight against the alien organism, and their remains are swept out of the body by
special cells designed for clean-up work.
It is enough I believe to recognize that the organization of the human
body and our patterns of behavioral response make the continuation of life a
natural goal. By reason alone, then, we can recognize that euthanasia sets us
against our own nature. In addition euthanasia does damage to our dignity. Our
dignity comes from seeking our ends. When one of our goals is survival, and
actions are taken that eliminate that goal, then our natural dignity suffers.
Therefore, euthanasia denies our basic human character and requires that we
regard ourselves or others as something less than fully human.
The above arguments are, I believe, sufficient to show that euthanasia
is inherently wrong. But there are reasons for considering it wrong when judged
by standards other than reason. Because death is final and irreversible,
euthanasia contains within it the possibility that we will work against our own
interest if we practice it or allow it to be practiced on us.
Contemporary medicine has high standards of excellence and has a proven
record of accomplishment, but it does not possess perfect and complete knowledge.
A mistaken diagnosis is possible, and so is a mistaken prognosis. Consequently,
we may believe that we are dying of a disease when as a matter of fact, we may
not be. We may think that we have no hope of recovery when, as a matter of fact,
our chances are quite good. In such circumstances, if euthanasia were permitted,
we would die for no reason. Death is final and the chance of error is too great
to approve the practice of euthanasia.
There have been many cases where spontaneous remissions have occurred.
For no apparent reason, a patient simply recovers when those around him/her,
including physicians, expected the patient to die. Euthanasia would just
guarantee their expectations and leave no room for the miraculous recoveries
that frequently occur.
Finally, knowing that we can take our own life's at any time (or ask
another to take it) we tend to give up, and rely on euthanasia. The will to
live is strong in all of us, but it can be weakened by pain and suffering and
the feeling of hopelessness. If during a bad time we allow ourselves to be
killed, we would never have a chance to reconsider. Recovery from a serious
illness requires that we fight for it, and anything that weakens out
determination by suggesting that there is an easy way out is ultimately against
our own interest. Also, we may be inclined towards euthanasia because of our
concern for others. If we see our sickness and suffering as an emotional and
financial burden on our family, we may feel that to leave our life is to make
their lives easier.
Doctors and nurses, for the most part, are totally committed to saving
lives. A life lost for them is almost a personal failure, an insult to their
skills and knowledge. Euthanasia as a practice might alter this. It could have
a corrupting influence so that in any case that is severe doctors and nurses
might not try hard enough to save the patient. They might decide that the
patient would simply be "better off dead" and that the steps necessary to help
that person would not be carried out. This attitude could then carry over to
their dealing with patients less seriously ill. The result would be an overall
decline in the quality of medical care.
I hope that I have succeeded in showing why the good will that inclines
us to give approval of euthanasia is mislaid. Euthanasia is inherently wrong
because it violated the nature and dignity of human beings. But even those who
are not convinced by this must be persuaded that the potential personal and
social dangers inherent in euthanasia are sufficient to forbid our approving it
as a personal practice.
Suffering is surely a terrible thing, and we have a clear duty to
comfort those in need and to ease their suffering when we can. But suffering is
also a natural part of life with values for the individual and for others that
we should not overlook. We may legitimately seek for others and for ourselves
and pain-less death. Euthanasia, however, is not just an easeful death. It is
a wrongful death. Euthanasia is not just dying. It is killing.
Partner sites: French Bulldog, Spanish school in Quito, and Wedding Speeches