Euthanasia (Essay Sample)

EUTHANASIA
Name
University
The right to life has been subject to numerous debates, legal or otherwise, and it remains very controversial in that respect. The constitutions of virtually every country guarantee minimal standards one of which is the right of every person to live. There are circumstances, however, in which the law leaves a room for the denial of the right to live (Otani, 2010). Such situations are referred to as the mitigating circumstances during which the right to life can be taken away from an individual but for very compelling reasons. One such reason is terminal illness. Oftentimes, patients suffer irreversible medical conditions the cure of which is not assured. Such illnesses call for the termination of life for a number of reasons usually to relieve the pain and to cut back on medical bills. The process is called euthanasia and it has ignited endless debates amid fallout on the sanctity of life and the need to have a realistic approach on the issue.
Taking a life is not an issue that many take lightly. In some conservative societies it is considered an abomination or illegal while other more liberal societies welcome it. Euthanasia has thus become a controversial issue as legal and ethical debates ensue. In some instances doctors have been prosecuted for ‘mercy killing’ as it is loosely referred to (Gesundheit, 2006). This is why it is a subject of interest in medical practise laying down certain ground rules (Otani, 2010). For instance, to undergo euthanasia, one must be suffering from an incurable disease though there are various instances where patients ask to end their lives for certain reasons. Evidently, euthanasia requires the patient’s consent in writing or that of a guardian or legal administrator. It is illegal to kill a patient without reasonable cause and the expressed consent.
Equally, euthanasia presents a number of ethical and moral dilemmas. Doctors struggle with the question of whether it is right to end the life of a patient to relieve pain and suffering. The dilemma extends to the question of circumstances where it is acceptable to resort to such measures. When is it acceptable to allow terminally ill patients pass away at their own will or to simply assist suicide? (Oluyemisi, 2004) Many believe that ‘assisted suicide’ is the right thing to do in extreme cases. However, conservative societies denounce it saying that the will of God must not be interfered with. These are the dilemmas that many doctors have had to confront in this case.
In an effort to put this issue into context, it is important to understand both sides of the debate as well as the pros and cons of administering lethal injection to terminate life. The underlying principle behind euthanasia, which is also the major pro of such an operation, is the need to end suffering and pain by putting a patient to death through medically assisted suicide (Stolberg, 2007). The process thus allows a doctor the right to administer a timely and dignified death where the chances of recovery are minimal. Equally, euthanasia allows patients to die with dignity before it reaches stages that will be full of shame and ignominy such as being bedridden and fed. The process grants the patient a right to choose if and when to die but it must be established that such a patient had the legal sanity to make the call. Euthanasia is also said to be beneficial to the family of the patient in terms of finances. Some of the terminal medical conditions require a lot of money to clear the bills. The more a patient remains in medical care the higher the bills soar. With euthanasia, there is a possibility to cut back on the costs and relieve the family of that burden.
Even with the projected rational calls in support of mercy killing, there are various concerns that have been raised. On one hand, many worry that allowing the freedom to unilaterally end life grants too much power to the doctors, which leaves a window for abuse (Emanuel, 2004). Therefore, the case against doctor assisted suicide touches on the sensitivity of the right to live, which cannot be trusted on doctors. On the other hand, people have argued that euthanasia presents a slippery slope that could legalize murder. This was the case with Michael Jackson’s doctor who was prosecuted and convicted of assisted suicide. This argument is drawn from the utilitarian perspective where it cautions