Source: Medical News Today
Euthanasia is the deliberate taking of a seriously ill person's life to end their suffering.
A person who has euthanasia typically has a terminal illness. However, there are other circumstances in which some people wish to end their lives. Most of the time, it is done at the person's request, but occasionally, they may be too unwell, in which case family members, medical professionals, or, in rare cases, the courts decide.
The topic has long been the focus of contentious discussions that also take into account moral, ethical, and practical issues.
Rights-based argument
Based on the concepts of autonomy and self-determination, proponents of euthanasia contend that a patient has the right to decide when and how they should die. The idea of autonomy holds that people have the right to
make decisions about their lives as long as they don't damage other people. They tie the idea of autonomy to a person's right to be in charge of their own body and should have the freedom to choose how and when to pass away. A right to self-determination and a right to a dignified death are also claimed to be components of our human rights.
Beneficence
It is believed that conducting euthanasia on a patient will result in more benefit than harm if it relieves them of their pain and suffering. According to proponents of euthanasia, no patient should be allowed to endure intolerable suffering, and mercy killing should be acceptable. These moral principles are compassion and mercy.
The difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia
Euthanasia proponents contend that withholding or withdrawing medical care that results in a patient's death—passive euthanasia—is not morally worse than active euthanasia. According to this point of view, it is asserted that active euthanasia ought to be legal, just like passive euthanasia.
This viewpoint is promoted by well-known euthanasia supporter James Rachels. According to his utilitarian argument, there is no moral difference between killing and letting someone die because both actions typically have the same aim. He uses two fictitious situations to demonstrate his point. In the first scenario, Smith
decides to drown his six-year-old cousin while he is taking a bath because he believes he will receive an inheritance if something happens to him. In a similar situation, Jones, who stands to receive a large sum of money should his six-year-old cousin pass away, plans to drown him but instead sees him drown accidentally
and lets him go. Callahan [9] draws attention to the fact that Rachels provides an example where both participants are fictitious. Callahan draws attention to the fact that Rachels provides an example where both participants are fictitious.
He further claims that active euthanasia is more humanitarian than passive euthanasia since it involves a "quick and painless" lethal injection as opposed to the latter, which might lead to "a relatively slow and painful death".
Euthanasia opponents contend that withholding or withdrawing therapy that would otherwise terminate a patient's life is morally distinct from deliberately ending a patient's life. Permitting a patient to pass away from an incurable illness could be interpreted as permitting the illness to be the death's natural cause without moral responsibility. When interventions are stopped, the patient dies as a result of the underlying condition; life-support treatment only delays death.
The Australian Medical Association, which opposes physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia but does not regard the discontinuation or withholding of treatment that causes a patient's death as euthanasia, strongly supports this point of view.
The sanctity of life
On the other hand, the sanctity of life is a concept that is central to the argument against euthanasia and can have both a secular and religious foundation. That human life must be honored and protected is the underpinning ethos.
According to the Christian perspective, every life is a gift to God, who shouldn't be offended by its taking. Similarly, according to the Islamic religion, "God alone has the power to grant life and to bring about death". When therapy is ineffective, it may be withheld or discontinued since doing so is viewed as allowing death to occur naturally.
Euthanasia as murder
Despite the patient's agreement, society considers any activity with the primary goal of killing another person fundamentally evil. Active voluntary euthanasia is referred to by Callahan as "consenting adult killing.".
Abuse of autonomy and human rights
While proponents of euthanasia use autonomy in their justification, the opposite is also true. According to Kant and Mill, the autonomy principle prohibits the voluntary ending of the conditions required for autonomy, which would be accomplished by taking one's own life.
As most terminally ill patients may not be of sound or reasonable mind, it has also been claimed that patients' requests for euthanasia are rarely autonomous.
According to Callahan, the idea of self-determination necessitates that the right to live our own lives be conditioned by the welfare of society, and as a result, we must take into account the possibility of harming the common good.
Some opponents of euthanasia contend that the practice violates the"right to life "in terms of human rights. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to life". Advocates for the right to life reject the argument that having the option to die makes suicide almost always acceptable.
The role of palliative care
It is frequently suggested that providing patients with sufficient palliative care can alleviate their pain and suffering, rendering euthanasia pointless. In their words, "requests for euthanasia are rarely sustained after good palliative care Is established" (Norval and Gwynther).
The rights of vulnerable patients
If euthanasia were to become commonplace, it might result in circumstances that violate the rights of helpless patients. These include pressuring patients to get expensive therapies to consent to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
The doctor-patient relationship and the physician’s role
The doctor-patient relationship is weakened by active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, which also destroys the trust and confidence established in such a partnership. The purpose of a doctor is to assist in the preservation of life. Euthanasia performed by medical professionals "would undermine and compromise the objectives of the medical profession".
Conclusion
It is clear that euthanasia is a difficult topic, with physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia at its center. It has the status of a criminal offense in Australia, which carries charges of manslaughter or murder under the country's criminal code and/or common law. The legal status quo that prevails in the majority of other nations throughout the world is reflected in Australia's prohibition of and
criminalization of the practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are only permitted in a few nations and states. The numerous justifications offered for and against euthanasia, as well as the few that have been given, only give a brief glance into the moral discussion and contention around the practice of euthanasia.
Citations:
Comments