Arguments against Euthanasia Analysis (Essay Sample)

Arguments against Euthanasia
Name
Course
Professor
Date
Arguments against euthanasia
Euthanasia is any action intended to terminate the life of a patient. Euthanasia calls for the physician's active participation in assisting in the patient's death. The notion of physician-assisted suicide is very controversial. In the act, the physician assists through medication or another mean to an end the patient's life without the direct involvement of a medical profession. Euthanasia for depressed persons or persons suffering in psychiatric patients concerns the assessment of care criteria procedures in the law. First, the patient's mental competence because there is a high possibility they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Second, the requirement of a well-considered nature of the request, given that death requests can be a symptom of depression, psychiatric disorder to be termed and incurable since most of the disorders tend to change over time. With the fore mentioned reasons and many more discussed herein; euthanasia must not be made lawful, and while physicians must honor a patient’s refusal to be put in a life-sustaining treatment, they are not obligated to fulfill their patient's request for Euthanasia.
With proper palliative care, there would be no need for Euthanasia. Today's world has intended superior and innovative technology that people don't need to suffer from intolerable or overwhelming pain. Palliative care has improved steadily, and there is a provision of hospice care in almost all parts of the country. With all the facilities available, voluntary active Euthanasia is unnecessary. In keeping with Verhofstadt et al. (2019), the best approach to handle terminally ill patients is to provide the best health services to ease their pain while in the course of treatment. Investment in more hospitals and improved palliative care provision should play a major role in preparing a decent send-off.
Some doctors may purposely give wrong information to their patients. Verhofstadt et al. (2019) indicate that one out of five people can survive a terminal diagnosis. Further, Sanz-Rubiales and Del Valle (2017), has noted that many physicians give an optimistic time when they are asked by their clients the length of time they might live. Medical professionals cannot be honest with the patient even when there is a law safeguarding death with dignity. It is hard for some people to qualify for a program when their health is hidden from them. Misleading information may lead to a patient making wrong decisions that may result in termination of his life.
There is no proper mechanism to regulate Euthanasia. Lack of moral and legal permissibility of voluntary Euthanasia leaves the entire exercise compromised. According to Metzger (2018), there can never be adequate proof to legitimize that a dying individual's request for help to die on is competent and really intentional. Arguably, request to die makes not reflect the person's will because many factors can push a person such the decision, some of which are temporary. That is why those who advocate for Euthanasia argue there should be a cooling period before it is permitted to ensure that the request is genuine and constant. More so, there is no justification that a person's request for Euthanasia reflects settle preferences for death. In a case where a person is racking with pain, depression, and mental confusion, and there is no measure taken to relive the pain, they will most likely be unable to contemplate choices available. As such, a person who wants to die should not be assumed to have effectively resolved and voluntarily desires to die.
Euthanasia medication may not deliver the intended results. Verhofstadt et al. (2019) give an example of patients who took lethal prescriptions as part of the death with dignity act in Oregon. It is not morally acceptable. The moral acceptability for voluntary Euthanasia where a life-prolonging measure is removed with a competent request from the patient has been questioned. The reason why passive Euthanasia is said to be permissible is that there are no steps to preserve prolonging life. Such an incident happens when the patient decides to request the life-saving machines' withdrawal because they are burdensome. Anyway, for a person suffering from depre