The issue of euthanasia is fraught with ethical ambiguity and quandaries. Several types of euthanasia are recognized, with physician-aided suicide, assisted suicide, and actively consented euthanasia, causing the most controversy. In general, these terms refer to the termination of an individual’s life to alleviate their suffering, usually via drug administration. Currently, euthanasia is criminalized in most states in America, with some acts of euthanasia legally acceptable under specific conditions. Therefore, this paper will discuss the ethical dilemma of euthanasia and why it is ethically unacceptable.
Based on the concept of self-determination and autonomy, proponents of euthanasia contend that a patient is entitled to choose how and when they die (Ebrahimi, 2012). Autonomy is the premise that an individual has the freedom to make choices concerning their life provided they do not harm others. They associate the concept of autonomy with the right of a person to control their body and make individual decisions on when and how they will pass away. Moreover, it is contended that as an aspect of our civil liberties, we have the right to make decisions and the liberty to die in dignity.
It is believed that euthanasia would do more good than damage by relieving a patient’s misery and anguish. Euthanasia proponents argue that the underlying moral principles of society like, mercy and compassion necessitate that no ill person be allowed to endure unbearable suffering and that euthanasia should be acceptable. Euthanasia proponents also argue that passive euthanasia, which is the cessation or withholding of medical interventions leading to the patient’s demise, is not morally better than active euthanasia. From this perspective, active euthanasia should be legalized in the same way that passive euthanasia is. Another argument is that mercy killing is more compassionate than passive euthanasia. It is a painless and swift lethal injection, compared to the latter, which often results in agonizing and relatively slow death.
On the contrary, the critics of euthanasia claim that a substantial moral difference is evident between actively ending a sick person’s life and withholding or withdrawing treatment that terminates a patient’s life. Allowing a patient to die from a debilitating illness may be perceived as letting the illness be the natural root of mortality with no moral responsibility (Ebrahimi, 2012). Life-sustaining treatment merely delays death, and when such remedies are discontinued, the patient dies as a result of the underlying illness. The Australian Medical Association strongly endorses this view and is opposed to mercy killing since they don’t consider the withholding or withdrawal of treatment as physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
The Christian perspective regards life as a privilege from God and is offended when taken away by a human. Comparably, the Islamic religion states that “it is the sole prerogative of God to bestow life and cause death.” Therefore, withdrawing or suppressing treatment is allowed when interventions are deemed futile, as it is considered letting death take its natural course.
To debut that euthanasia relieves chronically ill patients of their anguish, it is also contended that a patients’ pain and suffering can be alleviated by providing adequate palliative care, rendering euthanasia a futile approach. After effective palliative care is created, requests for medically-aided death are rarely witnessed. If euthanasia becomes a legal practice, it may create situations that jeopardize the liberty of vulnerable patients. It may include coercing patients undergoing expensive treatments to approve physician-aided suicide or euthanasia.
Regardless of whether the patient consents to euthanasia, society considers an action with the specific intent of kill another person as intrinsically immoral. Callahan (1992) refers to active consensual euthanasia as authorizing adult killing. Additionally, physician-aided suicide and active consented euthanasia undermine the relationship between the patient and the physician, destroying trust and confidence. The role of a doctor is to save lives and not terminate lives. Casting physicians in the position of administering euthanasia would compromise and undermine the goal of medical vocation.
In conclusion, mercy killing should not be permitted from an ethical standpoint. It is a practice that is morally unacceptable by religion and society at large. Furthermore, the suffering of a patient can be alleviated by palliative care. Lastly, euthanasia would put the liberty of vulnerable patients in jeopardy and undermine the medical profession.
References
Callahan, D. (1992). When self-determination runs amok. The Hastings Center Report, 22(2), 52-55.
Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The ethics of euthanasia. Australian Medical Student Journal. Retrieved 19 May 2021, from https://www.amsj.org/archives/2066.
