THE RIGHT TO DIE
The right to die has become quite a controversial and difficult issue. There those who argue that euthanasia ought to be legalized and there those who are entirely against it. Notably, Euthanasia is a way of causing painless death to end suffering, especially for people in a coma due to accidents or for people who happen to be terminally ill. According to John Keown, the debate regarding euthanasia is riddled with misunderstanding and confusion (2018). Currently, people suffering from severe pain or incurable diseases such as cancer and other conditions are kept alive even through artificial means. Most interestingly, patients that do not have any chance to recover are not allowed to die, and thus, doctors are not permitted to terminate their lives to end their suffering. Consequently, advocates of euthanasia have claimed that one’s life and body ought to be one’s own. Markedly, one can dispose of his or her body in any way they wish or choose to take his or her life at any time. However, the critics argue that euthanasia is unethical issues since it’s not morally right to take one’s life under any circumstances. More so, they have considered the religious perspectives that are against mercy deaths. The right to die is unethical, goes against religious views and inappropriate as it is difficult to determine the mental fitness of people who choose to end their lives.
The right to die offers terminally ill patients a way of reliving them from suffering and pain. More so, patients who have to be supported by machines and have no chance to recover can seek a doctor’s assistance to end their life. In this way, patients get an opportunity to experience a less traumatic and painless death. These patients do not have the desire to live since they can no longer live life normally. More specifically, some terminally ill patients have to utilize machine such as respirators to breath and feeding tubes for nutrition purposes to survive. These patients ought to be accorded the right to terminate their lives. At the same time, some patients suffer from incurable diseases such as cancer which is associated with a lot of pain, do not have hope and thus, cannot be forced to live. More so, according to Emanuel and others, euthanasia is legally practiced in Belgium, Colombia, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Canada (2016). Overall, mercy deaths are necessary to relieve patients who cannot recover form pain and suffering and allow them to die on their terms.
There are those who argue that despite a patient’s medical condition, ending his or her life should not be a choice as it is unethical and morally wrong. More so they argue that the decision to take one’s life cannot be justified. However, these claims are entirely misguided since mercy killing can be thought as ethical (Chambaere, 2015). It’s noble because it’s a process where doctors assist patients who are suffering from incurable diseases that cause them severe pain. Notably, there is no sense in forcing people who are terminal health conditions such as brain damage to endure a lot of suffering. At the same time, considering Euthanasia as unethical and coercing an individual who is terminally ill to endure suffering and later die as ethical is inappropriate; markedly, what these people mean by Ethics is conforming to accepted norms and behavior which do not address the situations. More so, there condition where it’s clear that patient cannot recover, and that they will undergo a lot of pain, where the patient has been informed of all their options and made a decision to terminate their life to end their suffering. In these cases, it essential that doctors give the patient a mercy death instead of forcing him or her to endure a lot of pain.
The option of Euthanasia prevents a family member of terminally ill patients from suffering. More so, given that the patients cannot recover, nurses can only offer minimal care to the patient, and thus, family members have to spend most of their time attending to their loved ones providing him or her with special needs until he dies. More specifically, there condition where a terminally ill person has to have someone staying with him throughout the day and night, and in this cases, the family members have to take the responsibility (John, 2018). Markedly, Euthanasia offers a way for patients to avoid their families from suffering by terminating their lives. More so, considering that they cannot recover or access further medical treatment. At the same time, Euthanasia allows people avoiding expensive hospital bills that might cause a financial burden to the family members left behind.
Separately, there those who argue that the right to die is inappropriate as it goes against religious views and therefore is inappropriate and morally wrong. More so, to the Catholics, Euthanasia is a great sin which if committed, is not forgiven. However, religious views are quite diverse and cannot be used to decide for patients who are suffering from incurable diseases (Radbruch, 2016). Notably, the Hindus tend to agree with Euthanasia, and thus, the religious view tends to differ. Consequently, the choice to die or live ought to be a personal decision. Most importantly, euthanasia cannot be viewed as murder since it is a calculated decision that a patient with the help of a doctor and family member make after considering the extent of illness and possibility of recovery. Markedly, religious affiliations or views which suggest that the act is immoral ought to be disregarded as they do not speak for all people considering that people come from various backgrounds which have different views on the matter.
The right to die allows ill patients the dignity to die without fear of losing their mental and physical capacities and say goodbyes to their family members (Chambaere, 2015). Notably, Euthanasia offers patients a chance to avoid a lot of suffering as they can die early before their symptoms become even worse. This allows them to die with self-worth while at the same time enabling family members to remember them as they were before them health deteriorated. More so, they can arrange their exit, talk to family members, and prepare them for their death. Markedly, although life matter, dignity, and honor are also relevant. As so, the right to die ought to be accorded to all terminally ill people to make an independent decision on whether or not they wish to continue living.
On the other hand, there those who argue that it’s difficult to determine the mental fitness off people who choose to die and hence Euthanasia is inappropriate. Most interestingly, they suggest that a psychiatrist cannot determine whether a person who chooses to Euthanasia is on his right mind since he might be undergoing various forms of disorders (Kim, De & Peteet, 2016). However, these claims have no basis because it is possible to determine the severity of patients conditions. More so, doctors can determine whether patients can recover or not. In effect, they can deduce which patients are in a lot of pain and hopeless conditions and do not merely accept mercy death request from patients who have not been determined as terminally ill without a doubt. Markedly, it possible to identify whether a request for Euthanasia is reasonable, based on sober judgment and made by mentally fit patient.
Conclusively, the bases of the right to die” is the belief that a person can undertake an intentional Euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia is a medical procedure where a doctor assists the terminally ill patient to terminate his or her life through the use of medication. Consequently, many believe that those who are severely sick with a condition such as brain cancer have the right to perform Euthanasia. More so, terminally ill patients cannot live a healthy life or recover. Markedly, it would be inappropriate to deny such critically ill patient the right to end their suffering and pain through Euthanasia. Nonetheless, Euthanasia allows terminally ill patients to die with dignity, by their own choice and while they still maintain their mental and physical capacities. Nevertheless, mercy death will enable patients to die without enduring painless and less traumatically. Also, it allows terminally ill patient to avoid burdening their families through affording special need to them and leaving huge hospital bills that would create a financial burden to the family. However, there those people who argue that the practice of Euthanasia is unethical. Also, that it is inappropriate since it’s hard to determine the mental fitness of a patient. Although these arguments resonate with a significant number of people, they are misguided and do not overweight the merits of Euthanasia. More so, because they are based on religious perspectives and ethical consideration which do not rationally address the issue at hand.
References
Chambaere, K., Vander Stichele, R., Mortier, F., Cohen, J., & Deliens, L. (2015). Recent trends in euthanasia and other end-of-life practices in Belgium. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(12), 1179-1181. Retrieved from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/-10.1056/NEJMc1414527
Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama, 316(1), 79-90. Retrieved from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/-jama/article-abstract/2532018
Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from:https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&l-r=&id=2r9tDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Euthanasia+&ots=_fNL-4mCoE&sig=Mja2NyP7pXHcxW1pAiE3_bOLdrE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Euthanasia&f=false
Radbruch, L., Leget, C., Bahr, P., Müller-Busch, C., Ellershaw, J., De Conno, F., … & board members of the EAPC. (2016). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a white paper from the European Association for Palliative Care. Palliative medicine, 30(2), 104-116. Retrieved from:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269216315616524
Kim, S. Y., De Vries, R. G., & Peteet, J. R. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide of patients with psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014. JAMA psychiatry, 73(4), 362-368. Retrieved from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2491354