Relevant Research on Euthanasia (Research Paper Sample)

EUTHANASIA
Name
Institution
Abstract
Euthanasia elicits significant debate because of the ethical and moral challenges of ending the life of a fatally ill patient intentionally and prematurely. The Hippocratic Oath bars doctors from carrying out euthanasia. However, ancient Greek and Roman doctors did not follow the oath strictly on matters related to euthanasia. Ancient societies practiced various forms of euthanasia. Illegality of euthanasia is based on ethics and morality of medical practice. Views against euthanasia are also influenced by religious beliefs, which consider euthanasia to be a form of murder. While the goals of euthanasia are noble, experience in countries where the practice is legal suggest that without a comprehensive legal framework, abuse can occur. The biggest fear is the extension euthanasia to persons who are not fatally ill, but suffering from equally debilitating conditions. The crux of discussion on the matter is whether mere existence is good enough or people should just live when they are in charge of all their faculties. Both sides of the argument are persuasive and the concerns raised are valid. As the debate continues, developing capacity of caregivers to alleviate suffering should be the priority.
Introduction
 Euthanasia can be well defined as the intentional killing by omission or act of a dependent being for his or her purported benefit. The key term here, clearly, is "intentional." If the demise is not intentional, then it is not an act of euthanasia. Euthanasia can be non-voluntary as well as voluntary. The latest case we have heard of in the news about euthanasia is the case of Terri Schiavo. In this case, the point that doctors took out her suckling tube was a non-voluntary act of euthanasia. Instead of having her own consensus, her husband made the choice, hence making it non-voluntary. The husband believed it was the best decision for her since she was in a lazed state for more than fifteen years. However, many people do not agree with the husband decision. They argue against legalizing euthanasia in itself. They reject the argument of dignified death insisting that the same can be achieved through palliative care. Euthanasia is an enormously controversial problem-dividing professional in both the legal and medical fields. Some maintain that death is a choice and persons have a right to die. Those against euthanasia claim that, death occurs since a fatal pathological disorder is permitted to take its natural course. Relatively, their intention is to stop imposing a burden on the patient and discontinue doing something useless. This paper discusses euthanasia from the viewpoints of those who oppose it. The paper provides arguments against euthanasia; euthanasia should be unethical and immoral and should be banned
Relevant Research on Euthanasia
The Belgium, Netherlands, and the Northern Regions in Australia are amongst some of the nations that recognize Euthanasia as lawful. Euthanasia in the Netherlands accounts more than 5% of the country's deaths (Mak, & Elwyn, 2005). In 1997, the Supreme Court of United States conceded the act of Death with Dignity in Oregon, which indicated that physician helped suicide, is unconstitutional right, but that individual conditions are free to prohibit or permit it. Since then, some other states have considered physician-assisted suicide to be lawful (Emanuel, 2002). Each human life is significant, hence; euthanasia should not be lawful since it devalues human life, dishonors psychological theories, and not free from complications. According to Hyde (2001), doctor-assisted suicide devalues human being life. In certain morals, human life is not valued, and they frequently celebrate their daughters and sons being murdered and blown up for the good of their individuals. Nevertheless, one thing that groups the western hemisphere directly above the rest is our respect and appreciation for every human life. Ending any life is a decision that should never have to be made. Presenting it as an option to patients is forcing them to decide to end their suffering prematurely and for the wrong reasons. Before accepting the request for the lethal drugs, physicians must ask a series of provisional questions. Doctors must make certain the patient completely understands his or her disease prognosis, and other treatment alternatives. ''Whether or not the patient has recently experienced family drama or a spiritual crisis must also be analyzed.'' If the distribution of the fatal treatment must continue, the general practitioner should look more intensely into the patient’s life and examine the reasons for their choice better. Although those minor provisions are taken, the physician still has slight actual proof concerning the mental state of the patient at the time the choice is being made (Griffiths, Weyers, & Adams, 2008). It is not compulsory that the physician recommend alternate opportunities for treatment. Nevertheless, it is proven that in 30 % of cases intrusions such as hospice referral and pain control changed the patient's thoughts about suicide (Hurst, & Mauron, 2003). The physicians should be more cautious before agreeing to distribute the medication because human life is irreplaceable, and if there is any chance of recovery or pain management it should be the only option presented to the patient. The legal option of euthanasia also creates temptation for dying people and their families to think they can "manage death away"(Keown, J. 2002). Death should also only be decided by nature, and no matter how serious the fate of the ill, family members should not be allowed to decline their loved ones right to life. Human life is invaluable, and doctors should not be involved directly in causing death. The trust a patient has in their doctor is unlike any other bond because the patient trusts the physician with their life. In order to become a doctor, physicians must recite the Hippocratic Oath, which begins with the words, "First, do no harm.”Participating in a patient’s suicide would obviously break this oath. This occurred during a case in 1999 when Jack Kevorkian was sentenced to a ten to twenty-five tear prison term for giving fatal medication to a patient (Verhagen, & Sauer, 2005). Even though it is unlawful in most states, in some cases euthanasia can be done non-voluntarily. The non-voluntary option presents doctors with too much power; a life should not be taken because it is no longer convenient or cost efficient. The power then given to the doctors would provide the insurance companies with an opportunity to put undue pressure on the physicians to avoid heroic measures, and end life prematurely simply to save money or avoid hassles. Euthanasia is suicide and should not be legal because it devalues human life. Psychologists agree those making the decision to commit suicide are not insane mental places. Technically the law states that, every individual of elderly years has a right to choose what will be done with his own body (Keown, J. 2002). Nevertheless, if Euthanasia suicide and become lawful rights, the presumption that persons trying suicide are in need of psychological help and deranged would be reversed. Over ninety-four percent of those committing suicide suffer from identifiable mental disorders. Meaning almost everyone choosing to end his or her life has some mental problem. In most cases the condition, such as bipolar disorder or depression, is treatable and can be easily managed with medication. Extreme illness causes physical and emotional exhaustion ''which impairs basic cognition,'' creates unwarranted self-blame, and lowers overall self-esteem, all of which easily lead to distorted judgments and regrettable decisions. Those factors all play a part in any patient’s decision to choose euthanasia. None of those factors however is looked into when a physician is deciding whether to distribute medication. Psychological experts agreethat, it is nearly difficult for a mentally sane person to be seated and make a ''cool sane'' decision to commit suicide (Keown, J. 2002). Since psychologist’s theories prove it is nearly impossible for the decision to commit suicide to be done for logical, thought out purposes, euthanasia should not be legal. Euthanasia also makes it appear as though suicide is not serious or that a life is less valuable because of the suffering endured. Those who try suicide are treated for their mental problems almost instantly, yet euthanasia is irrationally becoming an established part of today’s medical system. Interestingly, a significant amount of Americans expresses more judgments that are negative about suicide than euthanasia. Even though the situations leading to the decision to end life are different, ''the overall outcomes'' are identical. Legally, euthanasia is not being taken seriously. For instance, it used to be justified for the terminally ill, but now there are exceptions for other, less drastic, problems as well it is even allowed to occur non-voluntarily. Another reason, regarding mental illness, euthanasia should be illegal is that almost all who attempt suicide will survive, recover, and never attempt again. Anyone attempting to end their life has a serious mental issue, which means even those making the decision become victims of euthanasia most likely are not of sound mind (Baumann, 2010). Those with mental health issues deserve to be treated fully, and it is not fair to those who attempt suicide not to be taken, as seriously because physician assisted suicide is becoming a normal part of society. Normalizing suicide in today’s world also influences those who need help legally and for insurance purposes. Experts state that, accepting a right to suicide would generate a lawful presumption of rationality, preventing proper mental health treatment (Hurst, & Mauron, 20...