Ethics euthanasia Essay Example

viewpoint asserts that euthanasia undermines human dignity by reflecting a fearful attitude towards pain and affliction. Individuals who have bravely confronted life's challenges frequently leave with admiration.

Advocates for euthanasia argue that it upholds the dignity of human life, a perspective that is contested by detractors who claim it hastens an individual's demise. Some consider euthanasia to be morally indefensible due to its deliberate act of terminating life, which contradicts our innate drive to protect and prolong life. Skeptics further suggest the potential existence of concealed or self-centered motives behind euthanasia decisions. Additionally, there are concerns about medical professionals possibly being influenced into not exerting their best efforts in saving a patient's life or purposefully underperforming in their attempts to keep the patient alive (Keown 79-80).

Euthanasia might be seen as a convenient solution, potentially ignoring other options. It's also often considered as inhumane because it facilitates a quick termination of pain. The morality of any act of killing can be subjective, influenced by the intentions and the context in which it occurs. Assisting a suffering patient, whose medical situation is hopeless, to die without pain could be perceived as an act of kindness. It might be considered heartless and incorrect to unnecessarily extend the patient's agony.

b. Misunderstandings regarding Euthanasia

Euthanasia is only defined when the action or inaction deliberately results in death. As a result, certain medical practices wrongly labeled as "passive euthanasia" do not fit this definition as they are not purposefully designed to terminate life. These procedures may involve refusing to start a futile treatment, stopping an inefficient or excessively burdensome therapy, or giving high doses of

painkillers that could possibly endanger the patient's life if considered necessary. All these methods are seen as legal and appropriate when properly carried out.

c. Moral Evaluation of Euthanasia

The act of euthanasia, in its most rigid understanding, is strictly prohibited as it involves ending a life. Consequently, no kind of reasoning - whether empathy, humanism or seeming religious piety - can make this action permissible. The supreme control over human lives lies beyond our grasp.

The foundations of natural law and Christian ethics, extending beyond medical expertise and human endeavors, emphasize the sanctity of human life. Any acts that violate this sanctity such as murder, genocide, abortion or euthanasia are considered morally reprehensible and degrade our society. These acts tarnish those who engage in them more than their victims. Such infringements represent a grave breach against the respect due to the Creator (Dowbiggin 612). The right to life is a basic human entitlement. If societal forces in the future were to coerce someone into renouncing his own life, it would greatly infringe on human freedom. Furthermore, it's crucial to note that if some jurisdictions have passed laws concerning the inception of human life (Szasz 199); could they not also be inclined to control its end?

Even though some people have attempted to validate and even legalize euthanasia executed as an act of kindness, it remains unlawful. No matter the feelings or financial reasons connected to it, its ethical nature persists unaltered.

The inviolability of human life is non-compromisable, making euthanasia fundamentally wrong. Sympathy cannot alter this ethical position as the primary issue remains the deliberate ending of a human

life, which is akin to murder. Furthermore, entertaining arguments based on "compassionate" justifications paves the way for perilous possibilities: sympathy could be used as a justification for endorsing the elimination of weaker individuals due to societal needs, justified on unstable grounds (Downing & Smoker 411). This might also prompt older people to "voluntarily" or lightly consider euthanasia.

Legalizing euthanasia could potentially lead to various societal impacts. For instance, patients may start viewing their physicians as possible future killers. It might also be manipulated to accelerate the process of inheritance. An additional concern is the risk of incorrect diagnoses resulting in unnecessary euthanasias, particularly when individuals are mistakenly labeled 'incurable' despite there being a potential for recovery. This could lead to a reduction in efforts towards advancements in medical research and empathetic treatment for the mentally ill (Szasz 205). Furthermore, not just hospitals but also social welfare organizations and elderly care facilities may lose their core purpose and transform into ominous institutions centered on systematic professional life termination.

The crux of the issue can be summarized thusly: it falls on the physician to distinguish between pain and death. The primary goal of Medicine is to postpone death and lessen pain through advancements in science and technology. This rigid approach to ending a life stands in stark contrast with fundamental medical procedure principles.

III. Final Remarks

In conclusion, people participating in the discussions on euthanasia and assisted suicide represent a variety of religious affiliations, or may not be affiliated with any religion. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that these subjects should not be restricted to or categorized under religious conversations.