The Faults with Euthanasia
Since the first known philosopher, humans have debated on the significance and meaning of life. Whether someone is religious or not, there is no doubt that the existence of humankind is both mysterious and substantial. Although these beliefs of life and human existence are still prominent to this day, many today believe that there are exceptions to when and how life can be ended. The debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide has been increasingly argued ever since advanced technology has created more difficult medical situations. While pro-euthanasia arguments have relevant points containing the idea of dying with dignity and an end to suffering, the overall idea of euthanasia is a skewed and unethical practice. Just the idea of allowing respected medical physicians to aid a patient in ending his or her life should be considered a heinous violation to the medical practice as a whole.
There is no doubt that many people with serious illnesses often suffer a great amount of pain and trauma, especially when patients may be terminal. Family members have a hard time seeing their loved ones suffer for long periods of time when a second option is always hanging over their heads; if the suffering patient wishes for death to come sooner, there is always assisted suicide to end the pain. Dr. Maisie in her article about the pros and cons of euthanasia states, “In case of individuals suffering from incurable diseases or in conditions where effective treatment wouldn’t affect their quality of life; they should be given the liberty to choose induced death” (Maisie). This statement suggests that humans have the right to choose how they die, an idea which, to most people who support euthanasia, is the most compelling idea behind the practice. Supporters believe that when one chooses to die, there is dignity in death. Although this argument does sound reasonable, it contains many noticeable faults. No one can convincingly say that there is a dignified way to die, considering that death is most usually look upon as an unfortunate event. Additionally, most would not know if the ill patient is in the right state of mind to choose the day of their death; most patients who are on pain killers can become incoherent. Another argument toward pro-euthanasia is the idea that healthcare would be able to be distributed more equally if health services were not used so much on those who are terminally ill and want to die. One source states, “Allowing such people [terminally ill] to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live” (Ethics Guide). This suggests that medical institutions should not waste any medical technology or medicines in order to stabilize ill patients who wish to die, but instead use these resources to save others who wish to live. This argument can also be deterred by the possibility that a terminally ill patient may feel obligated to be euthanized in order not to be a burden on medical institutions that could spend time and resources on patients that have an actual chance to live. This obligation would lead to involuntary euthanasia in patients and could become a regular event in patients who become severely ill (Ethics Guide). One of the most intriguing and substantial opinions on pro-euthanasia is the idea that humans have the freedom, under the Constitution, to choose death. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or imply that the government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide” (Messerli). The previous statement implies that it is a recognized freedom under the Constitution that one can take his or her own life without the government interfering. However, by openly allowing euthanasia to occur in medical institutions, this practice could lead to a whole new set of laws and regulations that could put pressure on medical professionals whose main job is to preserve life. There is no reason that the practice of euthanasia should interfere with the work and respect of healthcare professionals by forcing them to oblige to the unethical wishes of ill patients to assist them in suicide.
As humans, most people value life and respect the fact that medical professionals must do anything in their power to save the lives of their patients. Such ethical and moral rules are found in the Hippocratic oath, which is what medical professionals swear by before entering the medical field. By allowing doctors to euthanize ill patients, these medical professionals would be breaking the Hippocratic oath: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Tyson). The Hippocratic oath is set in place to guide doctors morally and ethically in treating and dealing with patients; a weakening in the oath could lead to the disregard of the oath completely, making ethical reasoning in the medical field unclear. Another argument against euthanasia is the “slippery slope argument” that begs to ask the question of whether or not deaths will soon become involuntary due to the pressures of vulnerable patients, such as the elderly, weak, and distressed patients (Quill and Greenlaw). No patient should have to feel pressure to commit assisted suicide because it may become normal in society; instead, patients should feel comfortable with the fact that physicians are working hard to treat and care for them. Another idea that has been brought to the light by many against euthanasia is the possibility that doctors will become too powerful if the government allows them to choose if they want to aid a patient in assisted suicide (Messerli). Physicians make mistakes like anybody else and sometimes misdiagnose patients with potentially terminal illnesses. If a patient were misdiagnosed with a deadly illness and requests to be euthanized, the doctor would be wrongfully killing a patient. The act of wrongfully killing a patient would be seen as unethical, and it is not only against the law but also against the Hippocratic oath. In theory, by allowing physician-assisted suicide, this practice could terminate the need for palliative care. The purpose for Hospice and other therapy institutions is to offer moral and physical support for patients that are terminally ill. Hospice institutions and other treatment centers offer guidance for family members and the ill while also offering comfortable living environments for patients to live out their final days. If euthanasia were to be legalized, palliative treatment centers might see a decline in business because health institutions may want to direct patients to euthanasia because it would be more cost effective and less time consuming (Ethics Guide). When looked at by all possible angles, the cons to euthanasia far outweigh any pros that can be said about the subject.
By not allowing euthanasia, society will continue believing that life is still something that is valuable and that ill patients can continue battling illness in the hopes that they may overcome it, instead of taking an easier way out by committing assisted suicide. Sick patients can always pull through with a miracle by overcoming illness, but they will never know they can if they decide to end their lives. Physicians will never have to deal with the overbearing idea of helping patients kill themselves, while also breaking the Hippocratic oath and moral boundaries. Ethical standards would stay in place at health institutions, allowing for patients to fully trust medical professionals with the caring of their lives. Ill patients will never feel pressure to commit assisted suicide because they feel they are a burden to their families or to health professionals. Hospice centers would stay open and would help terminal patients and families emotionally and spiritually, allowing patients to accept their life circumstances and stay comfortable throughout the remainder of their days. There are so many ways that life could remain valuable for the terminally ill by eliminating the option to kill themselves legally in a health institution.
The thought of having future generations of terminally ill patients living out their days in a comfortable and supportive environment, such as palliative treatment centers, without worrying about being a burden to society or medical professionals is a wondrous idea. No one can ignore that the medical field can also sustain ethical boundaries, and no medical professional will have the tough and immoral situation of assisting a patient in suicide, which goes against the Hippocratic oath sworn upon by medical personnel, if euthanasia were demolished. Instead, physicians can focus on giving care to patients in the best way possible without the worry of stepping over ethical boundaries by assisting with euthanasia. The abolishing of euthanasia will eliminate the wrongful killing of patients who may have been misdiagnosed with a deadly illness, and it can also eliminate patients committing assisted suicide because they feel medical treatment will be useful for someone else worth saving. The medical field may even see a huge turn around when it comes to the research of deadly illnesses with a new pressure of curing patients who have the will to live, instead of having patients who take the easy way out with euthanasia. This pressure to cure patients can mean a wave of newfound medical treatments for terminal patients, giving patients and their families hope for a brighter future. There are so many possibilities in the medical field for advancements, which can be made with the elimination of euthanasia, that it is obvious that society could easily benefit from making assisted suicide illegal. The new age of palliative care and the treatment of terminally ill patients are just around the corner if society begs to ask if euthanasia is moral and ethically right. Then the medical field will be able to abandon the practice of assisted suicide and work toward creating longer lives for terminal patients.
Works Cited
“Ethics Guide.” BBC News. BBC, 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
“Euthanasia.” New York Times, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Greenlaw, Jane, and Timothy E. Quill. “Framing the Issue.” Physician Assisted Death. The Hastings Center, 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
Maisie, M. “San Juan Unified School District.” Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. San Juan Unified School District, 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Messerli, Joe. “Physician Assisted Suicide.” Balanced Politics. Balanced Politics, 7 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
Tyson, Peter. “The Hippocratic Oath Today.” PBS. PBS, 27 Mar. 2001. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
A very strong first paragraph, the thesis feels flawless. You did a excellent job stating the other sides stance and arguing the stances you brought up. The ending is tied up very well and makes the paper seem very complete and excellent. The flow is nice, and the arguments are flawless. This is a fantastic paper.
