Euthanasia Versus Suffering: Controversial Essay

Introduction

The issue of euthanasia versus suffering in a patient with terminal illness generates debate. On one hand, proposers of euthanasia believe that allowing a person to die a painless death is more kind than forcing him/her to continue living while suffering. On the other hand, the opponents of euthanasia refer to it as assisted suicide, which they argue that allowing a person to die voluntarily is against the law (Kim et al. 363). Euthanasia is defined as the painless ending of a person's life to stop further pain and suffering. The procedure is mainly done to people with terminal illness. This essay mainly discusses the reasons why euthanasia should not be an issue of controversy but rather a procedure that should be accepted and legalized.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Due to recent technological advancement in the medical field, many illnesses can now be effectively stopped and cured. Despite the advancements, there are still some instances where doctors can do nothing to ensure a person with terminal illness survives. For example, a patient with a terminal disease like cancer or Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome, if not given the required medical care can lead to body degradation, shutting down of vital body organs, and experiencing unbearable pain. In such cases, the life-supporting apparatus is the only option available for the medics to help a person with the terminal illness to live for a long period of time.

There are cases where people spend many years in a coma and connected to life-supporting apparatus with no hope and chance of recovering. As the days go by they experience agony, pain, and suffering. Not all patients can tolerate excruciating pain and also not all relatives of a patient with a terminal illness are able to continue seeing their loved one living while suffering (Ekstrom et al. 349). The suffering that an ill person undergo is one of the circumstances that lead to the controversy of euthanasia. Therefore, at times the best decision the medical specialists, the patient, and the family members can agree is to let the person with a terminal illness die voluntarily. The use of modern medicine may make the procedure easier, therefore, saving a patient and his/her relatives from continuous suffering. The opponents of euthanasia insist that the procedure shows lack of dignity on a person's life. On the other hand, the proposers argue that there is no dignity of life when it's full of suffering and pain, hence stopping the life of a person voluntarily helps to sustain the dignity of life of the patient.

The opponents of euthanasia tend to refer to it as a form of silent and legalized murder. What they do not consider is that there is no alternative to live a life full of agony, unbearable pain, and unending suffering with the knowledge that at the end of the treatment they will die. It would be considerate if there could be any type of machines and apparatus, for example in science-fiction movies, that can make it possible to freeze an ill person and revive him/her in future when there is an invention of a cure for his or her illness. However, it is impossible and unfortunately, this feared procedure is sometimes the only way of ending a patient's agony.

Although euthanasia helps to stop suffering to patients and their family members, its opponents refer to it as assisted suicide. Still, there are ethical concerns surrounding this procedure (Fletcher & Joseph 94). For instance, in developed countries, where there are many options in terms of treatment, euthanasia is illegal and a crime. For example, in a country like Britain, helping a person to voluntarily die is breaking the law regardless of the health status of the patient. Also in the United Kingdom, a doctor accepting to assist a person suffering from a terminal illness to pass away attracts a jail term of fourteen years. In the US, the euthanasia procedure depends on the circumstances surrounding the patient and the state in which the doctor and the patient live

In euthanasia, there is a famous case of Karen Ann Quinlan, after having taken a poison, she was close to death. She stopped breathing twice over a period of fifteen minutes. The doctors tried their best and brought her back to life but she remained in a vegetative state whereby she lived with the help of life-supporting machines. After many months on a life-supporting apparatus, her parents requested the doctors to switch off the machine so that she may die and stop the suffering that she was undergoing. After a number of legal procedures, the hospital accepted the request of her parents and she was finally disconnected from the machine. Although she continued to live after the disconnection, she remained in the vegetative state. This means that she did not live a full life. She could not help herself and this brought more suffering to the parents. She later died in 1985 after nine years due to pneumonia. This is a case that led to some countries to consider legalizing euthanasia in some circumstances.

A decision on euthanasia procedure is not easy. The specialists point out that there are two types of Euthanasia: the voluntary and non-voluntary. The voluntary one involves an ill person asking to be assisted to die with conscious of his or her decision (Keown 114). On the other hand, non-voluntary one happens when a patient is not able to decide on their life like Karen Quinlan's case. A question might arise as to why a patient on treatment could decide to stop living. The survey conducted in the US and Netherlands show that a third of patients with terminal illness choose euthanasia procedure (Muson et al. 215). The reason behind their decisions is that they cannot tolerate living in severe pain throughout their lifetime. Research shows that when a patient discovers that he or she is almost dying, the quality of life of the person drops. Instead of letting the person undergo depression and psychological torture, it is the best decision to euthanize the person.

Conclusion

In conclusion, euthanasia has been a procedure surrounded by controversy and causing public debate for many years throughout the world. There have been cases where patients with terminal illnesses have been cured. Therefore before the doctors, patients and the family members decide on euthanasia, let there be a thorough treatment and cross checks in medical terms to ascertain whether the patient can survive or cannot. For example, a person who has been involved in an accident and has lost all his limbs and may develop complications in future then the doctors can decide to end the life of such a patient. If a patient shows great improvement and chances of living his or her full life after recovery then there is no need of euthanasia as there is a strong conviction that every life is important and precious, that it is morally wrong to kill a person regardless of the way a person is intended to die. It is further argued that there is always hope for a cure for every disease. Therefore specialists should put in mind both reasons for and against euthanasia before making any decision to patients with terminal illnesses.

References

Ekstrom, Magnus P., Amy P. Abernethy, and David C. Currow. "The management of chronic breathlessness in patients with advanced and terminal illness." bmj 349 (2015): g7617.

Fletcher, Joseph F. Morals and Medicine: the moral problems of the patient's right to know the truth, contraception, artificial insemination, sterilization, euthanasia. Princeton University Press, 2015.

Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Kim, Scott YH, Raymond G. De Vries, and John R. Peteet. "Euthanasia and assisted suicide of patients with psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014." JAMA psychiatry73.4 2016): 362-368.

Muson, Carlton, and Joan K. Perry. Negotiating a good death: Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Routledge, 2014.