According to an investigation on the attitudes of 212 elderly inpatients towards euthanasia, there were 71. 7 percent patients in favor of euthanasia (Chen, Wang, Li 128). Euthanasia came from Greek meaning happy death or dignified death. It is the intentional killing by the act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. After the euthanasia became legal in Netherlands in April 2002, it turned into one of the biggest controversies in the world.
In addition to concern about eugenics, the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding, people began to pay attention to superior death. Although death is inevitable, it may be the satisfactory way for inpatients who are incurable to end their life. Seeing the General in the Particular There is no denying the fact that the outcome of euthanasia is death. Those who oppose euthanasia refer to it as intentional homicide. They say that people who make an attempt to end their own life before a natural death comes commit an illegal demeanor, because they have been deprived of the right to exist (Li para3).
However, this may not be the case. Although euthanasia conforms to all sorts of conditions of intentional homicide according to criminal law, essentially they have many differences. The first difference between euthanasia and intentional homicide is that they have a different purpose. Euthanasia has been a help to people from specific groups to avoid pain, but intentional homicide actually takes retaliates in order to steal money. Secondly, they have different perpetrators. Euthanasia is completed by the legitimate operation of qualified medical personnel, and intentional homicide has no specific groups who are the perpetrators.
Thirdly, they use different methods. For euthanasia, it is usually take drugs, taken without a painful way of ending the life; however, intentional homicide would not be effective to use any methods, the mandatory denial of their lives. Fourth, they have different natures. “Euthanasia” is well-intentioned, while intentional homicide is malicious. Therefore, euthanasia is not equivalent to intentional homicide (Niu para 12). Seeing the Strange in the Familiar With the development of the society, people gradually break with the conventional idea about euthanasia.
According to a survey in Beijing, there is more than 80 percent of people agree with euthanasia, but the same high percentage of people agreed that saving life is a doctor’s duty. This shows that the concept of a whole society at a general increase. In addition, there is general agreement that the euthanasia admits the right of the patient to choose die, and it is the progress of civilization. It is easy to see that people put euthanasia as a performance of patient who faces death frankly while they do not have any other alternative, take the initiative to end the suffering from illness, and it is a brave act.
As a doctor, practice of euthanasia for the patient is to help them achieve their own selection. In conclusion, euthanasia seems that has been already accepted by majority of people in the society. Seeing Personal Choice in Social Context Euthanasia provides a way of relief when a person’s quality of life is low. People who are suffering from illnesses that make them unable to communicate sometimes seek a way to die. It includes people who are in a coma, paralyzed, or simply so sick and weak that they cannot make meaningful sounds or other communication.
As a result of their illness, the quality of their life has been reduced to such an extent that their lives are no longer worth living. People say that such patients’ “quality of life” is too low (Johansen para 9). Nevertheless, it is a personal choice of how to have the best quality of life, whether it is through dying naturally, maintaining life artificially, or speeding up an inevitable terminal process. Euthanasia is not the essence of life and death choices, but the choice of death, it reflects the sanctity of life, the quality of life, and the value of life (Cao para 3).
Though the end of life can be serious, but is also can be peaceful (Zhanglang 14). Euthanasia is necessary to prevent a very poor quality of life in some circumstances. Seeing Sociologically: Marginality and Crisis Euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. When terminally ill patients suffer unbearable pain, eliminating the patient would be the only way to mitigate the pain because the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely available (Waters para 1).
According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washington Medical Association called Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, “adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99 percent of patients. “(Einstein 4). However, in order to bring patients relief from pain, the medical workers using outdated or inadequate methods combined with today’s advanced techniques to make it possible to help patient relief pain from illness. As a result, they always fail (Waters para 2).
Doctor Kathleen Foley, Chief of Pain Services the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, explained how proper pain management has mitigated patient wishes for euthanasia: We frequently see patients referred to our Pain Clinic who request physician-assisted suicide because of uncontrolled pain. We commonly see such ideation and requests dissolve with adequate control of pain and other symptoms, using combinations of pharmacologic, neurosurgical, anesthetic, or psychological approaches. (Foley 290) Where We Live Shapes the Lives We Lead
People agree now that the government of the Netherlands put the practice of legalization of euthanasia; however, in China, euthanasia is still illegal. Comparing the Terminal patient who trend to practice euthanasia between Netherlands and China, China’s patients suffered more pain from their illness than the Netherlands’ patients. According to a survey, nearly two-third of people think euthanasia legislation for the Chinese is very necessary or comparison necessary. The older the people are; the stronger urgency of people to consider the legislation is. (Zhang para 2) Societies throughout the World are Increasingly Interconnected
Because euthanasia is only legalization some countries such as Netherland, Belgium, and Oregon in the United State, some of terminal patients choose to implement euthanasia abroad. For example, because euthanasia is still illegal in England, the English terminal patients have to “require death” abroad. An organization which headquarters in Switzerland called dignity has helped 22 British citizens to implement euthanasia. Founded in 1998, this organization aims to help people die with dignity. It has helped 304 people on the practice of euthanasia, but 200 people are not Swiss. In U. K. , this organization has 557 members. (Li para 4)