Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper
Euthanasia
The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek word “eu” for good and “thantos” which
means death and originally referred to intentional mercy killing. But the word it
euthanasia has acquired a more complex meaning in modern times. Proponents of
euthanasia believe that a dying patient has the right to end their suffering and leave the
world in a dignified manner. Those who contest euthanasia believe that man does not
have the right to end another person’s life no matter what pain they endure. Euthanasia is
one of the most important public policy issues being debated today. The outcome of
debate will profoundly affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and
patients, and concepts of basic morality. The word euthanasia has acquired a complex
meaning in modern times. There are several types of euthanasia and one must define
them in order to avoid confusion. Passive euthanasia is the process of hastening the death
of a person by withdrawing some form of support and letting nature take its course. Such
a act would include removing life-support equipment, stopping medical procedures,
stopping food and water and allowing the person to die. Active euthanasia involves
causing the death of a person through a direct action in response to request from that
person. This is also called mercy killing. Physician assisted suicide is the process of a
physician supplying information and or the means of committing suicide to a patient.
This would include writing a prescription for a lethal dose of sleeping pills or providing
the patient with carbon monoxide gas. Euthanasia has been practiced in some form or
another by many societies in our history. In ancient Greece and Rome helping others to
die our putting them to death was considered permissible in some situations. In the Greek
city of Sparta all newborns with severe birth defects were left to die. Voluntary
euthanasia for the elderly was approved custom in several ancient societies. Although
euthanasia is widely practiced in the Netherlands it remains technically illegal. In 1995
Australia’s Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill. It went into effect in 1996 and
was overturned by the Australian parliament in 1997. One may ask, what is the difference
between euthanasia and assisted suicide? In euthanasia one person does something that
directly kills another. For example a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient. It assisted
suicide, a person knowingly and intentionally provides the means or in some way helps a
suicidal person killed himself or herself. For example, a doctor writes a prescription for
poison, or someone who hooks up a face mask to a canister of carbon monoxide and then
instructs the suicidal person on how to push a lever so that they will be gassed to death.
For all practical purposes, any distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide has
been abandoned today. However passive euthanasia is different than other types of
euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the process of hastening the death of a person by
withdrawing some sort of treatment. This includes removing life-support, stopping
medical procedures and medications, stopping food and water to the patient and thus
allowing him to die. Or not delivering C P R or other resuscitating treatment and
allowing the person whose heart has stopped to die. Perhaps the most common form of
passive euthanasia is to give a patient at large doses of morphine to control pain, in spite
of the likelihood of the painkiller suppressing respiration and causing death earlier that it
would otherwise have. Many states in the United States and other countries engage in this
type of passive euthanasia to what is known as a health-care proxy or do not resuscitate
order. These procedures are usually performed on the terminally ill, suffering patients, so
that natural death will occur sooner. It is also opted for persons in a persistent vegetative
state, individuals with massive brain damage or in a coma from which they cannot
possibly regain conscious. During the 20th century, major scientific and medical
advances have greatly enhance the life expectancy of the average person. There are
however many diseases that cannot be cured by modern medicine. Such diseases like
AIDS, terminal cancer, multiples scalrosis. These conditions remain a certain death
s
many weeks or months. There are however other reasons why a person may feel
euthanasia is appropriate. These reasons include the patient feels that the their quality of
life has shrunk to zero, they feel the indignities of being cared for as if they were and
infant, including being diapered and fed by nurses. Others simply want to die with the
dignity before they become sick. Such an example would be a person was diagnosed with
Alzheimer’s disease and would like to end their life before serious dementia overtakes
their living. These people feel that they would rather die in full mind and body rather to
let themselves live a few more years in a vegetative state or with debilitating dementia
that does not allow them to recognize their closest family. Proponents of euthanasia
believe that the patient has the right to end their life when it is known that there will not
be any recovery and death is imminent. They believe that a human being has the right to
die in dignity and a painless death rather than suffer endlessly knowing full well that they
will not recover. Those are anti-euthanasia state many reasons for their position. One
reason is because euthanasia is contrary to Judeo-Christian ethics. Many religious groups
within Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religions believe that God gave life and
therefore only God should take away a.life. Suicide would then be considered as a
rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. They feel that we are all masters of our
own lives, but that’s suicide should never be an option. Many other faith groups believe
that human suffering can have a positive value for the terminally ill person and for their
direct family. A Roman Catholic document mentions that some people prefer to
moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntary at least a part of their
sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ
at the time of crucifixition. Some Jews feel that pain and suffering in this world acts as
atonement for sinss and transgressions and may benefit them in entering the world to
come. The two main arguments offered by Christians and other religious groups are the
following: life is a gift from God and that each individual is a gift. Thus only God can
start a life and only God should be allowed to end it. Also, God does not send us any
experience that we cannot handle. God supports people and suffering. To actively seek an
end to one’s life would represent a lack of trust in God. Those who are pro euthanasia
offer the following arguments: each person has autonomy over their own life. If a
person s quality of life is nonexistent, they should have the right to decide to commit
suicide, and to seek assistance if necessary. Sometimes a terminal patient s pain can
cause an unbearable burden, death can represent a relief of intolerable pain. When one
discusses euthanasia we must understand that this is a legal view. By passing legislation
that allows euthanasia we’re getting the right to doctors and patients to end their lives.
We will be allowing euthanasia to become a procedure practiced in the hospital or
hospice. In the end it will just be a matter of procedure such as a blood transfusion or
operation. One must ask, by denying the legislation of euthanasia are we in fact denying a
person to end their life? The answer to this is no. People do have the power to commit
suicide. Suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized. Each and every year, and the
United States alone, there are more suicides than homicides. Suicide is a tragic,
individual act. There are several books on the subject of suicide such as Derek
Humphrey s Final Exit . Organizations such as the Hemlock Society have been
established to give information on patients interested in ending their own lives.
Euthanasia is not about a private act. It’s about letting one-person facilitate the death of
another. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies, it is about changing
law and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intesinaly end
another person’s life. This change would not give rights to the person who is killed, but to
the person who does the killing. In other words, euthanasia is not about the right to die.
It’s about the right to kill.