Sciences >
Medical Science (Other)
RSS FeedIs euthanasia ethical or unethical?
Results so far:
| Ethical | 67% | 370 votes | Total: 553 votes | |
| Unethical | 33% | 183 votes |
Ethical
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites"One has observed life poorly, if one has not also witnessed the hand that mercifully kills."
Fredrich Nietzsche
I wouldn't try tossing this topic around at the 4th of July party. The world has seen very few topics incite such opposite polar reactions as this. Abortion may be it's only worthy opponent. Euthanasia has no middle ground and you'll get no wishy washy "I don't have an opinion one way or the other" answer here. Everyone has an opinion and they are strong, with conviction supplying fuel for the fire. Whether moral, legal, or religious euthanasia is a topic brimming with conviction. Leaving both sides of the fence convinced they are right.
When translated from the Greek Euthanasia leaves us with a "good death". On the surface it appears to be a reasonable and rational desire. If nature were to give us the option, who in their right mind is going to say "No, I'll take the completely horrible death package over there on isle three instead."? The "good" death would be the way to go right? Unfortunately nature offers no such options. As humans we try to manipulate nature hoping to coax her towards the good death. With the advent of more advanced medical treatments and technology we have become a race capable of outsmarting nature for a good long time. We vaccinate, radiate and obliterate anything standing between us and our well being. Surgery can be preformed on a fetus; we can clone a sheep for God sakes! You can have your eyes, your teeth and an ultrasound all done at the mall. Bodies are acronymically scanned routinely and what can't be cured can be treated. Yet despite all of our efforts we or someone we love will come up short. Given the fact we are resourceful creatures when faced with the bad death option we have found a few ways around this as well.
Euthanasia has in more modern times become generally accepted as the purposeful ending of the life of another at that person's request. It is also generally accepted such death will be merciful and painless. Euthanasia is by no means a modern concept. History is steeped in it, with many accounts being anything but merciful or painless. Ritualistic suicide for the preservation of honor or the giving of drugs to hasten death was not an uncommon practice in the ancient world. Dig around in any culture and you will find references to such practices. Regardless of ancient vs. modern the debate hasn't evolved much and in some cases neither have the practices.
Some opponents of Euthanasia would have you believe the road to Passive Euthanasia is paved with Advance Directives. As if somehow these "gateway" consents will lead to more sinister things. Probably the same people who believe if you're an organ donor with viable organs medical personnel is less likely to save you. The truth is Advance Directives when used correctly are prudent tools for making medical wishes known before the proverbial spit hits the fan. Either through the use of a Living Will (individual speaks for themselves) or Durable Power of Attorney/Proxy (individual appoints someone to make decisions for them) the do's and don'ts of medical treatments and procedures can be outlined. Where one person may wish to have all life sustaining measures taken another may wish no heroic measures. No one will tell you these documents are infallible or even recognized in every circumstance in all states. Often times they are open to interpretation. Even with those facts in mind outlining what you as an individual can tolerate could only prove helpful to loved ones and medical staff should the need arise.
As is the case with most hot topics, definitions of certain terms tend to vary. Passive Euthanasia is usually defined as allowing death to occur through omission. In some definitions this includes turning off respirators and ignoring pain medication guidelines. Allowing for a dose to be given even when respirations are so suppressed the dose is likely to cause death. We commonly see this in Hospice and Palliative Care settings. Many argue pulling a plug or administering a lethal dose of medication require an act, making it Active Euthanasia. Nonetheless these practices are accepted in all 50 states and are the only legal recourse available for the terminally ill (unless you live in Oregon or Ohio). Pulling the plug and lethal injection notwithstanding it isn't hard to see why what is deemed Passive Euthanasia becomes conscionable. The remainder of what constitutes Passive Euthanasia is not Euthanasia at all. When did natural death become synonymous with Euthanasia? In the 30's the Germans used Euthanasia as a synonym for genocide. I can call garbage dinner but everyone at the table knows its still garbage. Let's get real here. If someone with an incurable cancer opts out of chemotherapy, or the person with advanced heart disease declines CPR are we really going to call that Euthanasia? Of course not, those death certificates will read "natural causes".
For those of us who support the right to die little forward thinking can be seen in Passive Euthanasia laws. Allowing respirators to be turned off and pain med protocols ignored are merely baby steps. Please consider for a minute the patient who has neither option open to them, the person with ALS or the coma patient with a feeding tube for example. Now suppose for whatever reason under the Passive Euthanasia guidelines the only choice available to you was the refusal of nutrition. This form of legal suicide is felt by some the only way to end a life deemed not worth living. When someone decides to take their life in this manner you can be sure antidepressants have been prescribed and the psych squad called in, or a court has been asked to intervene. Why? Because it's barbaric that's why, and most of society feels no sane person would choose this. It is no more humane than the old customs of leaving deformed babies out in the elements to die. Yet everyday people decide this is their only option. They decide this because the perfectly legal and ethically accepted "lethal injection" is Passive Euthanasia only for a certain sector of the terminally ill. In all other cases that same lethal injection becomes Active Euthanasia, no longer legal or ethically acceptable. The idea of one being more ethically sound than the other is ludicrous.
Active Euthanasia involves doing something at the request of the dying which will cause death. Active Euthanasia is outlawed in all states with the exception of Oregon and Ohio. Assisted Suicide was decriminalized in 1996 in Ohio and in 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act. In Oregon a terminally ill patient can obtain a prescription from
their physician for a lethal dose of medication. This is done only after a healthcare team has evaluated all the circumstances. Pills are not being handed out willy nilly and people aren't offing themselves left and right. They are merely being given the choice to legally die peacefully and mercifully. Doctors are not forced to participate if they find this practice unethical and pills certainly are not being given to unsuspecting or unwilling. It seems to me this practice is far more acceptable on the compassion scale than allowing starvation.
Ethics aren't really much more than a public opinion poll. Opinions change and as the number of people wishing to exercise control over their death increases so will ethical views. We have tried for centuries to ban the practice of Euthanasia on ethical grounds yet people continue to find ways to end their lives. Court decisions will continue to be challenged and slowly ethical views will change.
Learn more about this author, Rosanne Gentile.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Unethical
The word euthanasia has often been described as a merciful killing to better relieve a person of the pain and anguish forced upon them from illness, therefore leading one's family to grieve with the knowledge that the said person is no longer in pain. Often, people question the mercy of the death, perceiving that anesthetics are far from merciful and prevent a person from offering last words of comfort to their families, whether that is due to a state of unconsciousness or the mind being numb to the point where it no longer has the capabilities to speak with true meaning. For most people, it is not a question of the method that is used but a question as to what man has a right above another human life?
The definition of euthanasia, as stated by one website, is the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that produces rapid unconsciousness and subsequent death without evidence of pain. In truth, there are a number of forms of pain that fail to be recognized; physical pan is the one which seems to be said to not exist, however, emotional and spiritual pain can form to, therefore, dishearten a man. One of the words used to describe euthanasia is destruction and thus it should be perceived that it is wrong due to the sociological perception of culture that, destruction, as a word, has a negative meaning in its connotation. As a reference and as evidence, it is often described that terrorist bombings are destructive, meaning that it has detrimental effects, as does murder, which is often described as a destructive act of mankind upon another.
Perceiving that murder is wrong because it is destructive, should it not also be perceived as true that euthanasia is wrong because it is the termination of a life which no man except the said person has control over? Murder, in its definition, is the premeditated act of killing with intention. Euthanasia, in its definition, is premeditated because a doctor deems it appropriate that the decision is final and it is not a sudden decision, similarly, it has the intention of relieving pain, which despite the good morals within it, should not be considered a reason to terminate a life. If euthanasia were to be considered moral because it relieves pain, could a murderer also state that he was relieving pain from the one he killed? The principle remains the same.
As seen in the past, doctors have often misused their positions, as have care workers and the likes of, and thus it could be considered an immoral act if a doctor were to be given the right of euthanasia above another life. Doctors are, as we are, humans and can often make mistakes or abuse the position which has been bestowed upon them and euthanasia could be a method of doing so which would have detrimental effects, not only upon the doctor and the terminated life, but also on families and the social structure of life. Laws would be applied to prevent the misuse of such a method but, as often seen, laws are but guides and it is free will that controls life. Laws cannot guide a doctor into making the decision as to whether to terminate a life or not; what regulations would be applied or which specifications would be needed to end a life? Could a doctor not state that all said specifications were met to help meet a hospital's targets?
Analyzing the religious aspects of euthanasia, some would perceive that it is an act of God to terminate a life, as He himself as a plan for each life upon the Earth and thus, if euthanasia were to be legalized, it would be considered an attempt at playing God' because it is ignoring the will of God. Whilst, to some, it would be of little relevance, those of a religious nature would perceive it as offensive and would also consider it to be the abandonment of God in hospitals. Some would believe that God would heal' those people and thus euthanasia would be a lack of faith and have no true benefits to the person or the family. If a doctor were to begin playing God', what other matters of life could a person have an effect within and therefore unbalance the nature and society of life?
Some would believe that it could be a tantamount to other crimes. Some would perceive it as immoral. For the most part, however, it is considered wrong because no defined specification would help a doctor to make such a decision and, as each person's case is different, the specification would change accordingly. Most would state that none have a right above another life and that there is no true mercy in it as the person has not made the decision themselves. The question, if one were to be perceive euthanasia as ethical is, when does it stop becoming merciful and start becoming murder?
Learn more about this author, Ian Caithness.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Medical Science (Other)
- Will political setbacks for stem cell advocates destroy medical research efforts?
