Many philosophers say about euthanasia that it should be acceptable from the moral aspect in specific cases, where it will only be a useful thing or a benefit for the person who dies. There is also a large impression that the target of euthanasia is to offer and give a benefit for the person who dies. What’s more, euthanasia is used to finish the suffering of this person. Moreover, it is acceptable and allowed from the moral aspect to get involved in voluntary euthanasia but it is unacceptable and not allowed to get involved in involuntary euthanasia. That’s why the topic of euthanasia includes many and various point of views from the medical, legal and religious aspects. This report will talk about these points of views and if euthanasia is good decision to be made or not.
Euthanasia Debate Disagree:
In the beginning, we should be aware of what this topic will discuss as it will tackle one important issue which is the wrong application of the euthanasia in different medical institution. Moreover, we have to put in our mind the religious aspect because many people believe that God owns our bodies and he has the right to give and take lives according to his will. Furthermore, this report will talk about the medical aspect and its importance because it influences the cases of suffering in the entire world.
In addition, we should take in consideration the points of view of experts to get a deeper image about this topic because many doctors might face these kinds of cases in hospitals daily. Finally, we should talk about the legal aspect because many countries in the whole world ban these operations from hospitals and doctors who perform them might go to jail, but some of them try to violate different regulations.
Euthanasia Misuse:
From the moral aspect, euthanasia isn’t correct and from the legal aspect it should be stopped and prevented. This is a crime and killing a person and finishing his life mustn’t be justified in any cases. When someone finishes other human’s life, then he must be executed. But also the sentence of people has to be done under protection. In addition, because of advanced medical technology, it became possible to improve the life of people and increase their age.
It is worth mentioning that there are many people in the world said that euthanasia is not the main solutions for deterioration of the patient health. Furthermore there are some important alternatives and options that people should focus on before ending the life of the innocent people. These alternatives include like rehabilitation malls and precautions that could assist patients and disabled to be able to live a long and happy life without pain or suffering. Moreover, family members of the person affect his decision of mercy killing because of other issues and vested interests like inheritance of wealth.
“Euthanasia is morally wrong”. This means that euthanasia can lead to killing the innocent people without any justification. Even the doctors can’t expect exactly when the patient will die and if there is a possibility or even a probability that the patient could live or be healed and recovered by other treatments and medications. That’s why applying euthanasia or merci killing could mean several illegal cases of death of people who could have been recovered and survived if they had taken other treatments. Permitting euthanasia from the aspect of law could delegate and authorize abusers of the law and raise patient’s distrust. It could also lead to the reduction in the efficiency and the quality of medical care and lead to deception of the society. Thus, Euthanasia is wrong at it can lead to killing of the innocent people.
Religious Opinion of Euthanasia:
All religions affirm the fact of death and all the beliefs and faiths try to explain death according to people’s experiences. “In Christianity, the human beings express the image of God”. Thus, the human beings should not kill themselves. On the other hand, faith offers to people who are going to die a sympathy and relief as they are going to meet God. It is worth mentioning that Islamic traditions forbid all forms and types of killing the innocent people.
For example, not all the Buddhists agree with the topic of euthanasia beside the teachings of Buddha. Many Buddhists don’t agree with involuntary euthanasia. Furthermore, Christians are as the same as Buddhists. They disagree with the idea of euthanasia. Many churches of Christians also insist on the significance of not getting involved in the death’s natural process. What’s more, Muslims refuse euthanasia. They think that all the lives of humans are heavenly and sacred because Allah granted them to us and that He decides for how long each one of them will live and when he will die according to his will. So, people shouldn’t get involved in issues such as killing themselves.
The Medical Opinion of Euthanasia:
The nature of the health’s involvement in people’s souls determines the difference between passive and active euthanasia. The difference appears when this process will cause destruction and end to the person’s life or not. Agents of active euthanasia agrees with the deliberate activity of government of lethal sum with the target to offer death if it is demanded by the patient or decided by the family of the patient and his doctor.
On the other side, passive euthanasia is linked to the withdrawal of the importance of the argument to keep lives. The base of this discussion will be what reaction and attitude in the process of medical care will be considered by law as cancellation of passive euthanasia instead of the behavior of agents of active euthanasia. As for some writers, passive euthanasia is a bad word as it is a non-curative intervention that can’t be realized as euthanasia because it leads to death.
The main cause of death is the disease beside the work of the doctor. In the case of Bland Lawsuit Maker Goff, it seems that what the doctor did when he turned off the life support auto is not a behavior or an action but an omission of struggling as he is not forced to continue his job in a hopeless case. There is equality between the active and passive euthanasia in the sense of the responsibility to take the decisions to end life.
Expert Opinion of Euthanasia:
25% of influenced role requesting euthanasia was given psychiatric reference in 1998 in the Netherlands. Moreover, the interview in 58 of 16 successive case of patient receiving was offered and provided by a doctor extremity of a pro-assisted-suicide anteroom group in Oregon. This is related to the objectivity of the preventative procedure of the patient and wonders about the effect of prejudice on the doctors’ operations. What’s more, Oregon says that the patient must be referred to a psychologist in order to be treated if the consulting doctor affirmed that the judgment of the patient is weakened because of mental disorder like slump.
On the other hand, no one from the persons who died in 2007 in Oregon because of lethal uptake was assessed by a psychiatrist 20 although, comparing to non-depressed patients, patients who were depressed are subjected to ask for euthanasia and this complaint of treatment for depression usually leads to the patient’s cancellation of the request 21-23. For instance, in a study of 200 patients of cancer, the dominance of depressive syndromes was 59% between patients who has a strong desire to die, but only 8% between patients didn’t have this desire. 21.
In spite of this result, in Oregon a lot of members in families and masters of health of patients, who continue pas, don’t think that Great Depression affects the selection for sudden and quick death. 24. A new study in Oregon showed that some of the patients, who have depression, are slipping in the cracks 25. 1 in 6 patients had clinical depression between patients who got a prescription for a lethal drug. In addition, 3 patients of the 18 in the study who got a prescription for the lethal drug continued to die by lethal ingestion but were evaluated by a physician of mental health.
Patient Rights’ of Euthanasia:
The patients that can decide their own destiny have the right to be told about their medical treatment and checkup, the right to reject animation-prolonging measuring rod and the right to ask for assisted self-destruction. If it is up to us, then how much mental and physical pain we can bear? We are independent creatures who are determined to control and realize our end. When we take in serious consideration the concept of independence, then we should leave it to the point of view of patient role to specify their ability to bear pain at the end of their lives. In cases like these, it would be brutal and savage to persist on keeping a competent patient alive. Roles of patients like these don’t have to request for assisted self-destruction as in the end’s stage, most of MD can assist by providing final sedation.
As it is previously mentioned, in each class in Swiss infirmary and nursing houses many patients die in this way more than the 400 patients that are officially stated. The argument is that those patients die without asking to die in this certain way. It is really urgent that we must offer safeguard to protect the patients from dying against their will. We have requested actually a charge composed of leadership experts in the law, medicine and psychiatry fields to ask the question of whether or not some patients that are ill with mental diseases can make a rational and independent option when asking for suicide of assisted self-destruction. It is obvious that the relation between mental and physical illness isn’t always apparent and whether the target of committing suicide is conditional on the disease or not must be studied carefully in each case.
The Legal Status of Euthanasia:
The nature’s law says that 2 doctors and a psychologist must participate in the appendage if the competency of the influenced role is doubted. Both of the physician and the patient role determine the best behavior at police to end the patient’s life and this could be done through a lethal shot or a prescribed overdose. The Colombian Constitutional Court in Colombia on May 20th 2010 ordered that no one would be considered criminal for ending the life of a patient who is a permanent sick and had authorized euthanasia. It is not illegal to withdraw devices of treatments or other medications from the patient if he or his relative asks for that. Moreover, 57 persons like to view a doctor helps suicide legalized if the patient asks for it and that according to a questionnaire published in the Irish people Times.
On the other hand, the nature’s law was passed in a bill of parliament that enabled doctors to destroy and end the permanent patients’ lives. Although the United Mexican States orders that agent of active euthanasia is not legal in Mexico, but the law enables for euthanasia of passive voice to take action. As a matter of fact, the permanent patient himself or his relative could cause the waste of many medications. The royal court allowed the practice of euthanasia since 1980s and doctors are not forced to maintain role of patients alive unlike their wishes, although the law was passed in 2002. So, where is euthanasia applied legally in the United States of America? Many states in the US legalize euthanasia such as Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Booker T. Washington. In fact, the law enables permanent patients or patients with hopeless illness conditions to ask for lethal treatment. But the patients must make one written request and other 2 verbal requests for the doctors to finish his life. In addition, 2 doctors must accept the ability of the patient and the disease’s prognosis and diagnosis. In fact, the patient is the one that should ask in person for the treatment.
There is a similarity between the Washington legal philosophy and the Oregon police force as both of them says that the influenced role of a patient should make a written request and 2 oral requests too. These requests must be done within 15 days and the patient must suffer from a permanent disease with an expected life of 6 months or less. The point of view said that the patient has all the right to die in a respectful way. Moreover, the law enables the MD to help the patient by offering lethal treatment’s prescription that he will take the responsibility for it. In addition, we must observe that the desires of the patient to be resident in all the cases mentioned before to get involved in euthanasia.
