Euthanasa

Hailey Thompson

Stephanie Rosenquist

English 1302

28 April 2015

Euthanasia

Abstract

Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient (by a physician) suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. However assisted suicide is self-administered medication with the intent of death by the patient. Assisted suicide is illegal in the United States except in Washington, Oregon, Montana, Vermont and New Mexico. Euthanasia should remain illegal because disregarding morals and ethics, a patient’s fate cannot be determined properly by means of another being or even themselves in their medical state.

There is a very thin line between murder, suicide, and euthanasia and whether based on facts or philosophy, one can’t factually determine which is which and what is right or wrong. When a personally is ill, whether mentally or physically there are going to be emotional side effects. Doctor’s should not be granted the capability of determining whether someone lives or dies and being given that kind of power is liable to give a new outlook on doctors and their purpose and/or intent. Furthermore, (most) patients are not doctors and did not go through years of medical training. It can be justified that many patient’s knowledge on their disease or medical condition is not completely accurate or they may not fully understand the complexity/severity. In most cases, no doctor can 100 percent confirm someone’s death prior to it happening. Euthanasia is a tricky slope that in occasional situations can be vindicated, however there are too many cases, past and future, that have or can potentially pass for crossing that very thin line between assisted suicide and murder.

Euthanasia should remain illegal because disregarding morals and ethics and which the killing of another person, whether voluntary or not is murder, a patient’s fate cannot be determined properly by means of another being or even themselves in their medical and/or psychological state. Legalizing euthanasia can grant doctor’s too much power which can lead to involuntary euthanasia (slippery slope argument). Patients are also commonly known to misunderstand or be unaware of the severity and complexity of their diagnosis and that lack of medical knowledge could lead to unnecessary euthanasia.

Surety of the fact that one’s consent is voluntary is a slippery slope. Maybe someone has agreed to give up life just out of emotions but she/he may not be fully aware of what they are agreeing to. People argue that in most cases where someone is suffering from incurable disease, they should be able to voluntarily request to take their lives. However people going through illness are sometimes in a confused, disoriented state, and may have hearing problems or psychiatric illness. Can the individual be sure that by requesting to take away their lives they mean euthanasia or is it that they are just being emotional and misinterpreting the consequences of their consent?

Euthanasia is not about making sick and dying people as pain free and comfortable as possible. That is what is known as palliative care, and that is something which is improving all the time. Euthanasia is not needed when proper palliative care is available. Terminally ill patients are given drugs and other types of support to help relieve the physical pain and mental effects of being terminally ill. If this palliative care is competent then it may be able to relieve the patient of a lot of pain and discomfort, and will give the patient a better quality of life. “It corrodes community, so that when [someone] gets lonely and tired of life, the community comes to him or her not with encouragement and involvement, but with a needle” (Muehlenberg 2002). It has been stated by the World Health Organization that “palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a normal process; it neither hastens nor postpones death; it provides relief from pain and suffering; it integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of the patient.” Effective palliative care will give the patient and their loved ones chances to spend quality time together, and will allow the patient to live the remaining part of their lives with as much of the distress and pain felt by a terminally ill patient removed as possible. J. Gay-Williams also notes that one practical argument against assisted suicide, or any form of with euthanasia for that matter, is that no one can predict what medical science will discover in the future. It is not inconceivable that a person suffering from a painful, debilitating and terminal illness would have the right to die only months before an effective treatment were discovered. (“Life” 2013.)

        Euthanasia is a very inexpensive service. The cost of a dose of barbiturates and curare, as well as the few hours spent in a hospital bed that it takes them to act is minute compared to the massive bills acquired by many patients in the last weeks and months of their lives. Although, many Americans believe our health care system is reasonable, poor Americans have very little access to health care services. The poorest members of our society are faced with the problem of considering the costs of medical procedures instead of the possible benefits to their health. The medical world can put great pressure on a family of a patient to request euthanasia, including the fact that families have all kinds of subtle ways, conscious and unconscious, of convincing a patient to request euthanasia and relieve them of the financial and social burden of care. They must consider the financial outcomes when choosing any medical service including active euthanasia. Therefore, underprivileged families are often concerned with rising costs associated with expensive procedures and treatments and these families would be more likely to choose euthanasia because of the financial burden. Many patients already feel guilty for imposing problems on those who care for them, even when the families are happy to bear the burden. Therefore that reason provides a “suitable” request for active euthanasia. By providing such actions, medical world is at risk of putting to death a great many patients who do not wish to die. Legalizing euthanasia would save substantial financial resources which could be diverted to more "useful" treatments, however one’s request for euthanasia due to financial or social burdens is not a substantial reason to end life. These economic concerns already exert pressure to accept euthanasia, and, if accepted, they will inevitability tend to enlarge the category of patients for whom euthanasia is permitted.