Killing Or Saving All About Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

KILLING OR SAVING?

Euthanasia involves the act of killing for reasons of mercy to the terminally ill and hopelessly injured. It also means causing someone to die instead of allowing him or her to die naturally. Two kinds of euthanasia exist: active euthanasia, in which a person s actions speed up the death of another person, and passive euthanasia, in which death occurs from inaction or the withholding of care. Examples of euthanasia include disconnecting a patient from life support or giving a lethal injection. Formerly known as mercy killing, euthanasia has become a much-debated issue in society today. Doctors must make decisions that would lead towards the patient s best interest. Euthanasia emancipates the patient from pain and lifts off heavy financial and emotional burdens from family members; however, euthanasia is immoral because rarely does it follow a decision both given freely by the patient and uncloyed by a doctor s unethical and incompetent judgment.

People believe that the act of euthanasia would benefit both the patient and his family. Many argue that, keeping someone alive who is in unbearable pain, totally helpless, or brain dead is inhumane the quality of life far outweighs any legal definition of death (Euthanasia, 11-10). They believe that patients should be able to die with dignity. Patients should have the choice to go any way they choose. Another issue to take into consideration, is that families can spend all of their savings on prolonging the life of someone (Euthanasia, 11-10). The high cost of care can cause a family many duties to fulfill. Not only do they have to endure watching their loved one die, they also have to pay for it to continue. Permitting euthanasia will allow these people to have one less burden to carry and focus on more important things. Although these reasons support euthanasia, many other issues must be taken into consideration when making a big decision like death.

Very often, patients do not request euthanasia freely; they usually do not have a choice. Terminally ill patients, lack the knowledge and skills to alleviate his own symptom, and do not have the mental fitness or capacity to make a decision about life and death ( Twelve Reasons ). They become gripped with the fear of pain and anxiety about the future of their health. Furthermore, they probably suffer from dementia or confusion. All these may contribute to the false need of invoking death. Instead of allowing this self destructive act doctors must provide counsel and try to diagnose and treat mental diseases. Moreover, patients sometimes request euthanasia as a result of guilt from the thought of a burden to family, caretakers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources ( Twelve Reasons ). Patients should not feel pressured to take their own life just for the convenience of others. On society s part, it must let these people know that now amount of money or time could equal the value of their life. Society must look at its values and resources and do everything possible to save a person s life. The same holds especially true of doctors.

Euthanasia often becomes the result of lack of ethics and the incompetence of doctors. By participating in euthanasia, doctors violate historical medical ethics and fail in their obligation of preserving human life from the time of conception until death ( Twelve Reasons ). Doctors have always believed in providing the best care for their patients. They have never acknowledged euthanasia, even by request, due to the fact they have committed themselves to provide quality service for their patients. Sometimes a doctor may examine a patient and the, diagnoses may be mistaken may not be up-to-date in symptom control doctors are human and subject to temptation their own decision-making may be affected by their degree of tiredness or the way they feel about the patient ( Twelve Reasons ). A doctor s bias and opinion may contribute to his important decision on when a person should live or die. The doctor has taken it upon himself to play God when he have no right to. Lack of judgment can become deadly.

Although euthanasia would finally rid the patient of suffering and benefit his family through the lifting of emotional and financial burden of time and money, it does not represent the true values of man; it does not take into consideration the mental state of the patient nor does it call for a doctor s ethic and skill. Counsel and treatment, not a lethal injection, should be given to a patient. No one should act hastily and deliver death when so much can be done to preserve a life. Resources and money should not be compared to the price of human life. Doctors must live up to the oath they have taken: to do everything in their power to save a person s life from death. Euthanasia wreaks of immorality and injustice to humanity. Everyone must now take a stand in promoting life, not death.