People have been assessing about euthanasia for a long time, but the arguments are masked by different and conflicting ideas of what it really means (Doyle, Hanks, Cherny, & Calman, 2005). The controversy on euthanasia mainly discusses on the fact that some people acknowledge it as discontinuing the patient’s therapy and treatment. The distinction should be cleared since doctors do not have unlimited authority to intervene into the bodies and lives of sick and dying people. However, one of the essential elements of dying with dignity is freedom from pain and suffering.
From this, euthanasia became an option to cease the suffering of patients who are severely in pain. Patients have a right to request, and doctors have an obligation of fidelity to the dying to employ, every proportionate means available to relieve the suffering and the prolonging agony of the patient. Giving the appropriate medications to relieve the suffering of the dying is far different from the act of administering death. A dying patient receiving frequent medication for pain and “treatment” for their illness will eventually die after receiving a dosage of medication.
It is a misleading notion to conclude that the medication and not the last surge of the underlying disease caused the patient’s death. Euthanasia is often the only effective means of relieving dying patients from intense suffering. Another argument is that the patient owns his life after all. He can do whatever he wants with his life, like any other possessions in his life, be it material things or wealth, if he wishes to discontinue his life for certain reasons, especially for the prime reason of prolonged suffering and pain, no one could ever oppose that.
He is confined to this bed with all types of medical apparatus connected to him, incapacitated to do anything except stay alive. He is in severe pain, and wishes to just die in peace. If the patient wishes and decides to end his life, and someone thinks this isn’t a good decision, what right does he have to tell him what to do? It is clear that it is the patient’s preference to die rather than living with continued discomfort and pain thus should be respected and must be carried out. He is responsible for his own personal decision, which is just one of the many reasons why euthanasia should be permitted.
Moreover, euthanasia is one of the patient’s options to end his life. This is because of the unending suffering he feels due to a terminal disease he has. People in this circumstance would definitely like to ease their pain, also because of the inconveniences, and increasing burdens the family members are also experiencing. Health costs are also considered especially when the case is already terminal and the ballooning hospital bills adds up to the family’s burden. As a result, the ill patients may feel guilty with this entire scenario.
Especially because they have this terminal disease, they are in great depression as well because they too also want to live their lives to the fullest with their family and friends but know this is not anymore possible because of their falling condition. Since this situation is entirely sinking in, they may desire a simple way out – euthanasia. They definitely do not want to prolong the agony. Who does anyway? Everybody has different ways in tolerating pain; some doesn’t even have the capacity for it. We must consider that they aren’t only suffering from pain due to their illness but also the pain from grief, and distress.
They would never lie on how they actually feel, so we must not underestimate their capacity to bear pain. Only the patient knows what he is actually feeling as they approach death, so it is apparent that only the individual, has the right to choose when he wants to end his life. These points are only some of the factors considered in allowing euthanasia. The final reason worthy of discussion in allowing euthanasia is an individual’s frustration in pursuing a worthless life after becoming critically ill.
People who suffer from terminal diseases that make them incapacitated in living a normal way of life do not want to live any longer. Like patients who are in vegetative state, in coma, paralyzed, or just sick and weak that they cannot make good communication possible, they just want to end such suffering. Furthermore, some people think that the quality of their life is so down they’d rather die. For that matter, there’s no one in the position to dictate him what to do with his life. No one but the patient has the authority to decide for the person his way of dying.
Hence, euthanasia should be an option. Like other controversies and arguments, opposing insights with regards to its legalization are always present. Pro-lifers focus too much on the “killing”. They think that it is only God has the right to decide when and how to end someone’s life. Suffering is inevitable and definitely a part of everyone’s life. It is our task to understand and learn from this, not evade it. At the end, who wants death? If a cure is possible, then why induce euthanasia?
Pro-euthanasia says that this practice should not be abused and wouldn’t be done without the consent of the patient. The points have been laid down and we have to be clear that euthanasia is a death option that would cease a dying patient’s misery and pain if done solely in connection with the discussed above. With these, euthanasia should be legalized. The focus of euthanasia should be on the prime reason of the act, not the nature of it.
Works Cited:
Doyle, D. , Hanks, G. , Cherny, N. I. , & Calman, K. (2005). Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine (3rd ed ed. ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.