Physician induced death has long been a bone of contention all around the world since the inception of the practice. Whether or not doctors and medical physicians should be granted the right to terminate lives of patients is a matter that has created a very tight debate and evoked different reactions from either side of the divide, the opponents and the proponents of practicing euthanasia. Be it right or wrong, physician-induced deaths have long been legalized in some countries such as the Netherlands while others have remained skeptical of adopting it as an alternative to granting patients their death wishes due to the sharp debates that emanate from whether euthanasia is an ethical practice or not. The opponents and the proponents alike have got quite differing opinions regarding this form of suicide with none willing to listen to the other side's reasons. All said and done, I consider life to be sacred, and every human being has the right to live their lives to the fullest until it reaches its natural end. Bringing the life of another person to a halt just because we want to grant them their wish is in no manner or form acceptable. I do not think it's morally right to terminate another person's life, whether with their permission or not, and hence strongly oppose the idea of physician-assisted deaths.
I am always of the opinion that euthanasia is never necessary. Whether it is conducted as a way of easing a patient's pain or suffering or just as a way of reducing the burden that the patient's family has to shoulder regarding medical bills and emotional turmoil, euthanasia still does not serve as the best option. This practice is considered as a homicide case and is no better than murder. Better ways of saving patients from the physical pain and suffering are always existent. For instance, pain relievers and life support machines ought to be used in cases that indicate patient suffering at least to enable the patient to die a dignified death without any human intervention involved. So long as you are human, it should be your entitlement to die a dignified death not propelled by any form of a human act that nullifies the whole essence of the sanctity of life. Compassion should be the key driver of the medical decisions that we resort to making either as patients, doctors or families of patients and respect for human life be the guiding pillar of our actions.
The patient's right to die, as is always the thought whenever doctor-induced death cases arise is always associated with the doctors' duty to kill. This forms a sharp contradiction with the oath of practice that the doctors swear to uphold. It's every doctor's duty to protect and save lives and not to terminate them. The duties of a doctor entail upholding practices that reduce patient suffering while ensuring that they enjoy their right to life and good health. It, therefore, becomes a breach of the oath that they always undertook to be life savers and not death inductors. The legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide has resulted in abuse of the practice as many people including physicians are now using it as an easy way out of medical situations that are less complicated. It has become an uphill task for strict guidelines to be upheld in countries where assisted suicide has been made legal with the establishment of strict guidelines restricting the practice proving almost impossible.
Voluntary induced deaths may paint a very grim picture of the value of life. It devalues some lives while portraying others as more important. It, therefore, gives suicide a chance into peoples' hearts and makes others pity some form of life as painful and a total disaster. For instance, the idea of ending the lives of elderly people or people living with disabilities devalues their lives. It equates life with disability or life in the old age to death and makes people living under or with such conditions view themselves as unworthy of enjoying the gift of life. This defies life's moral standings.
However, proponents of euthanasia argue that the practice is the only option that would save a family of the emotional breakdown in seeing their family member passing through such a difficult ordeal. According to them, it's always not easy on their side to bear the pain of watching as their loved ones suffer. They consider the patient to be undergoing immense pain that could only be brought to an end through death. The patients who propose the idea and request for assisted deaths think of themselves as a burden to their families. With deteriorating medical ailments and piling medical bills, they see death as the easiest way out of the burden that they've become. Some are not able to withstand the pain that they experience and prefer to bring an end to it. Euthanasia thus becomes the best option as they consider it to be less costly with no pain involved.
Others believe that patients have got an explicit right to choose whether they would wish to end their lives or not. They believe that such a decision as wishing death upon one's self is a well thought out decision by the decision maker with reasons strong enough to warrant euthanasia. They consider the fundamental right to choose whichever way one wishes to die similar to making other choices in life and advocate for implementation of human free will. Denying a person their will and choice is considered as denying them their personal autonomy and a trespass to their status as human beings according to those in support of the practice. The proponents consider euthanasia as a free will and a choice that should be made available to any person who chooses that path. They think of the right to choose as fundamental and applicable to every human life element regardless of the outcome and should not be questioned.
Though there might be ounces of fact in cases where people propose for assisted deaths, there's no kind of excuse that can beat the purity and sanctity of life. Life is considered precious and should be treated as such. Life is a gift irreplaceable and priceless and demands utmost respect. It's acceptable to look for options that would alienate human suffering but never should those options be pegged on ending life as a way out of human suffering. Yes, it's true and acceptable for human beings to possess the right to free will and personal choices but let it be so long as the choices are geared towards bettering their lives and upholding the dignity that comes along with life. It should be every human element's aim to bring back the value that was once associated with life rather than devaluing it. Every life is as important as the other.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal:
- Compare Mexico and Brazil
- Implementation of Electronic Health Record
- Alkalosis and Acidosis
- Paper Example on Clinical Governance and Clinical Audit
- Comparison between Conventional and Alternative Medicine
- Medical Essay on Benefits of Electronic Health Records
- Essay Sample on Access to Capital by Healthcare Providers