Euthanasia: Killer or Life Saving?

by alanamikulis on September 12, 2016 - 8:37pm

Euthanasia still causes great debate in today’s society. Euthanasia occurs when a patient intentionally wants to end their life because they are suffering, ill or have a chronic disease that they can no longer stand living with. As of 2015, Canada has ruled in favor of doctor-assisted suicide for certain cases. In earlier years, patients had only one option; to continue living. Now, patients are indirectly asked if they wish to live or die.

Certain moral issues and values arise when patients are against doctor-assisted suicide. It is believed that patients who are terminally ill do not really want to die. They decide to die by euthanasia because they feel that they are a burden to their family and society. All patients should have to fight for the quality of their lives. Also, at times many patients are unable to make decisions for themselves and let family members make live changing choices that they cannot make. This endangers vulnerable patients who might wish to continue living. Unfortunately, many innocent lives will be sadly terminated and would represent a grave miscarriage of justice in the way we treat the most defenseless and weak members of our society. In countries like the Netherlands, the rate of doctor-assisted suicide has increased 1600 in 2006 to over 5000 in 2013. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. With doctor-assisted suicide, no one’s life is being saved or helped, their lives are only being taken. The greater good of society will be left behind with euthanasia. Fairness, autonomy, courage, integrity and strength will all be lost with doctor-assisted death. Humans life is fundamentally valuable and is a sanctity of life.

Euthanasia is one of the only way to end a patient’s suffering medically. Although there are negative effects to medically assisted suicide, there are positive aspects as well. Euthanasia targets the innocent patients who are no longer able to survive and want to live a peaceful and non horrifying death. With medically-assisted death, patients have a right for individual freedom and choice making. They can live and enjoy the rest of their lives in peace, as well as the patient’s family. Also, the famous oath of doctors “Do no harm” would be hypocritical if they refused euthanasia toward a patient. If society would let the individual suffer for the rest of its life, more harm would be created. This would take away the patient’s values of pleasure, justice, comfort and self-reliance. Euthanasia shows that individuals should always act in accordance to their own best interest. Outsiders should respect people’s autonomy and act for the great good of the individual. A patient who is in a terminal phase of life should be allowed the right to end his or her life if they are longer happy or comfortable. Their should be no questions asked if patients are in constant pain and definitely wish to die.

According to the previous arguments, I believe that everyone’s interests should have equal considerations and that no one should feel harm. I am in favor of euthanasia because all individuals should live a peaceful life in the way they desire. Patients should maintain their individual freedom and strength throughout their lives. If they desire to end their lives because they are suffering, then they should have the right to do so. Do you believe euthanasia is good way to end a patient’s suffering or should they continue living the life they are intended to have?

 

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-instead-of-legaliz...

Jacobson Asher, Rabbi. “Opinion: Instead of legalizing assisted suicide, it's better to err on the side of protecting the vulnerable.” The Montreal Gazette, 2 Jun. 2016: web.

 

 

Comments

Hi!
First off, I think your approach to the whole idea of euthanasia is really in-depth and I can see that you truly believe in what you are saying. The only thing for me, though, is in your attempt to show us how you believe euthanasia is wrong, I believe you have introduced a red herring into your argument. After explaining to us how so many innocent lives will sadly be terminated by euthanasia and how this represents a “grave miscarriage of justice in the way we treat the most defenseless and weak members of our society”, you tell us how in countries like the Netherlands, the rate of doctor-assisted suicide (euthanasia) has increased from 1600 in 2006 to over 5000 in 2013. You have brought in an irrelevant premise into your argument in order to change its direction. Sure, if you were trying to prove how the rate of euthanasia has gone up in the past blank amount of years, this statistic would be perfect for your argument, but in this case, it doesn’t help you prove how/why you think euthanasia is wrong. There’s a chance that you might have intended to use this fact as an actual part of your argument and it just didn’t come out as you wanted, so maybe you could explain to me what you were trying to say?

I wrote on the same subject, and so I think i can say, you did a very good job at explaining both sides of the conflict, better than me. Your paragraph in favor of euthanasia had all the details and arguments necessary to prove your point.However, it appears to me that you have too many unproved facts in your "against" paragraph. It was almost as though your argument against euthanasia is "Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. These kind of sentences seemed very unnecessary and did it felt as though you were against it, even though in the concluding paragraph you say you are in favor of euthanasia. Also, I know your post was about euthanasia, but in this debate you may have wanted to talk briefly about assisted suicide as well. In any case, I am glad that you posted about euthanasia because it makes me see a more detailled view on the matter than before. Well done!

Hey Interesting topic! Whether with consent or not euthanasia is still murder. In order to find the true solution to this ethical issue we must conform to the Word of God. Clearly in the The ten commandments it is written not to murder (Exodus 20:13). But we can also see an example of this issue confronted in the book of Job. When Job was enduring great pain and distress his wife said to him 'Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!' 10 But he said to her, 'You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?' In all this Job did not sin with his lips,” (Job 2:9-10). Jobs wife wanted him to end his life in order to end the despair and pain he was going through which is an early example of euthanasia. We are all to follow God's instruction and God is one that hates sin. Job refusing to take the wife's advice resulted in him not sinning against God. Which shows we are not to bestow our time of death. What do you think?

First of all, I would like to say that you have described in much depth and length both sides of the issue, which is great because you give your readers the facts, the explanations, the more scientific side to the matter, permitting us to analyse on our own, and make a critical and calculated decision of our own.
However, I believe that when you say that "all patients should have to fight for the quality of their lives", I don't completely agree with you, because most of the time, in Canada anyways, doctors will not accept assisted-death if they have scientifically-based hope for the patient, they don't just abandon their patients and let them take an irrational decision, it has to be approved by a certified doctor beforehand, and themselves.
Yes, patients do have the right to fight for their lives of course, but when there is nothing left to do, but only to suffer, and the doctor confirms it, then, in my opinion, it is normal to let the patient go, and I do not believe that they should have to keep fighting for "quality of life", because when in suffering and when in terminal phase, "quality of life" is not even in the question, it's all about only "life"
I completely agree with you that patients should have the right to deciding whether they want to live or die, and that living with sufferance is unhuman. However, I believe you applied "do no harm" in a confusing way. Personally, when I think of "do no harm", my mind goes straight to "do not kill", not: kill if you're suffering. What would have been interesting, is if you had applied this ethical principle to both your arguments, to see how it would have influenced both sides.
Overall honestly great post Alana. I've really picked on details, but your article was descriptive, clear and your opinion was extremely well identified.