Euthanasia and the human value

Title : Euthanasia and the human value

Student name

Course

Institution

Date

Introduction

The society is always dynamic in the all ways including their beliefs. What is considered wrong today could be right tomorrow. This is true especially in the contemporary society where matters of ethical are personal issues and not collective as they were in the past. This is the reason why many unprecedented issues have been introduced in the society, which could be rejected in past but which are welcomed today. The following discussion will focus on the issue of euthanasia which apparent is gaining popularity even though it infringes the human life and dignity.

Discussion

Euthanasia can be defined as the act by the physician of terminating the life of the patient for the reason that he could be going through excruciating pain and suffering (Asch 334). It is administered as an alternative way of saving the patient from pain where the normal medication has failed to yield any positive results. Euthanasia has also been said to be divided into two where one is the voluntary and the other one involuntary.

In the voluntary Euthanasia, there is consent between the physician and the patient. The patient gives the doctor the prerogative to terminate his or her life. This could be as a result of hopelessness that the disease one is suffering from will not be healed and instead of using a lot of resources and going through unending pain, the only alternative way is to artificially get executed.

On the other hand, there is the involuntary Euthanasia where the patient’s life is taken without their consent (Asch 338). This is in the circumstances where for instance, the patient is suffering from mental disorders and they are unable to cognitively make sound decisions. The patient’s life is terminated through the use of the third party who could be a close relative. This only happens when it is clear the patient will not recover.

This technique which is being applied in many countries including Australia and Holland has been criticized by the pro-life groups who argue that no one has the right to take another’s life. People have a right to life and unless the death is caused by the natural means such as sicknesses, no one should determine when one should die.

Several researches have been performed by different scholars to determine the extent of the Euthanasia and its prevalent in the world. For instance, a survey that was conducted in Holland by Van der Maas et al indicated that about two percent of the deaths that were recorded were as a result of administration of a lethal drug (Maas 321).This was done by the physicians who had received consent from the patients. The researchers were concerned about the whole practice and their worry led them to conclude that more research needed to be done in order to establish the actual number of patients who have ended their lives this way.

Maas also saw the need to include the whole society into this matter so that it can be discussed to find whether it is necessary to be integrated in the society. This is bearing in mind that the society is assumed to be in a kind of harmony and the introduction of issues that are not compatible with the society’s values may end up creating social conflicts. The society is also made up of different social institutions that include religion, family, polity, economy and the health sectors. All of these are expected to function properly for there to be peace and positive development in the society. The values must be in the must be in a way that they are consistent with the culture of the group. For instance, the religious institution will be against such practice equating it to murder of the innocent being.

One of shocking news from the research is the sudden change of attitude from the community regarding the elimination of a person’s life. A survey conducted in Australia in 1962 targeted a group of people where 76 percent of them gave responses to the question whether a patient in great pain should be given a lethal drug to terminate their life. The findings at that time indicated that about 39 percentages said they would not prefer that. This represented more than a half of the people who were interviewed (Emanuel 361).However, the later study which was conducted in 1996 saw a decline to about 17 percent.

That indicates that the societies’ attitude to Euthanasia was becoming positive with majority opting to support the act. This indicates that the shift has moved from the physician and the patient and that it is now the matter of the society at large. The main questions that many researchers are grappling with are, have the society lost the value for life? Is the society becoming callous and numb to the people’s life? In the past, the relatives could offer to live with sick patient even if they would not recover. Could this then mean that life was so valued in the past than in the contemporary societies? These are some of the questions that the researchers are trying to find out.

There are several factors that have made many medical practitioners to oppose Euthanasia strongly. Firstly, there is a notion that death is a result of failure in the medical field. The physicians are expected to try as much as they can to reduce the number of deaths that come as a result of sicknesses. The physicians who feel that this method is going to taint their picture remain adamant that they will not support the movement. The second reason is for the fact that many researches conducted indicated that many deaths that occur in the medical environment were as a result of the doctor’s practice. Many physicians were found to deliberately fail to save unavoidable deaths. For this reason, it would be difficult to convince people that the purpose of applying euthanasia is to help the patient die peacefully. The third factor is that many physicians will become reluctant to care for the needs of the patients since they have an alternative way of eliminating their lives. The whole relationship will become impersonal where the physician is not concerned about the emotional attributions of the patients. It will also affect the kind of the services that the physicians will be offering.

Though it has been stated that there is normally consent between the two, it can also be observed that it could be as a result of undue influence. This means that the ,patient could be suffering from a fatal disease but which could be treated in the long run though it will involves a lot of work and resources. The doctor may make the patients to develop a sense of apathy by telling them that they have no hope of ever regaining their health. For this reason, Brendan Nelson which is said to be the former president of Australian medical issues said, “We can not legalize every matter that arises just because it is in the interest of specific groups.” He saw the danger that would ensue as a result of this. He was also motivated by the ethical issues. This answers the questions whether it is right for one to take the life of the other human being. There are other alternative means to be used and this will include taking the patients to the homes where they will be taken care of.

One of the main reasons that have made some of the family members to opt for euthanasia is because currently people are so busy concerned with their careers and the need to reach their goals. Contrary to the past times where relatives would take care of the patients, today many will opt to take them to the homes. This includes even the old people since no one has time to take care of them. Individuality and self-centeredness could be another reason in that people no longer have the strong social bonds that help to maintain solidarity and a sense of belonging. People have also become stingy in the sense that they would not want to share their resources with others. For this reason a sick person may opt to die because they have no one to help them clear the accumulated medical bills.

The bottom line is that the whole process should be a matter of discussion where the community should consider whether there is need for this method and under what conditions it should be performed. Otherwise life should be guarded at all costs and measures put in place to prevent any manageable diseases.

Conclusion

The society should refer to the matters of ethical before legalizing certain issues in the society. Life is sacred and it should be protected at all cost. No one has the right to take another’s life and alternative ways should be devised to help the suffering patients.

References

Asch DA. The role of critical case nurses in euthanasia and assisted suicide. New Engl J Med 334: 1374-1379. 1997

Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, Daniels ER, Clarridge BR. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: attitudes and experience of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public. 347: 1805-1810. 1998

Van der Maas PJ, van Delden JJM, Pijnenborg L, Looman CWN. Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life. Lancet 338: 669-674. 1991

Stevens C, Hassan R. Management of death, dying and euthanasia: attitudes and practices of medical practitioners in South Australia. J Med Ethics 1994; 20: 41-46. 1999.