Legalize or Ban Euthanasia? - Research Paper

Introduction

Over many years, there have been debates over the issue of euthanasia, popularly known as mercy killing in medical scenarios. In the idea of Christians, Muslims, and other religious groups, euthanasia is referred to as assisted suicide; one that nurses and doctors offer to pose to their helpless patients. Different authors and politicians have argued about the ethicality of euthanasia in the healthcare context. Moreover, there have been disagreements on the act as a sin of killing according to the different religions. Euthanasia has been controversial, especially to nurses who have been found acting, mostly in Muslim nations since the religion values human life, and so do other religious groups. Some social and cultural values prefer that patients be left to die where medicine does not cure or provide more quality lifespan. By doing so, they would not find themselves on the wrong side of the law, or the judgment according to religious groups.

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

Order now

Brief Counter-Argument on the Issue of Euthanasia

This paper will focus on two authors arguing about a specific issue; one that supports the practice of offsetting the burden of very ill patients and another who disagrees with euthanasia, both ethically and religiously. The argument that holds more facts and logic between the two will determine which author wins on the verdict of euthanasia.

Cheryl K. Smith in Active Euthanasia as a matter of choice to accept supports euthanasia as a practice that relieves terminally ill patients from their suffering. She suggests that the action is legalized as it will be regulated to serve the patients a privilege of reducing medical bills. She also points out that legalizing euthanasia will significantly influence its regulation. On the other hand, Mathew Lu relates in "On the Moral Wrongness of Suicide: Self Murder and Euthanasia" the action to assisted suicide. His argument strongly relies on the fact that any form of death; assisted or self, is against the law and the different religious commandments. He claims that it is equally immoral and sinful for medical practitioners and nurses to practice euthanasia in the name of mercy.

The Basis of the Counter-Argument and the Conclusions

I. Smith bases her argument on the fact that American citizens have the right to refuse administration of unwanted medical treatment. According to the American Constitution, patients may choose to refuse taking medicines that they are not comfortable consuming. She relates the common law as one that gives citizens their right to die (1). Therefore, she extends her debate on the fact that the law should be extended to assisted dying, or in other words, euthanasia. Smith asserts that the rights of patients are related to the aid in killing, and should, therefore, be voluntary. She also states that patients should be informed of the risks, advantages, and expected results associated with euthanasia. Patients, therefore, will know the effects they might face upon choosing the course of euthanasia. With the relevant information, Smith suggests that nurses will consider euthanasia based on the patients' judgments. She, additionally, argues that as medicines relieve patient pain, so will euthanasia solve the same problem; relieving ill people of their suffering. In other words, euthanasia will liberate severely ill patients from their lives of suffering by causing their deaths.

Contrary to Smith's stand on euthanasia, Lu expresses the action as an immoral practice that should be condoned by healthcare centers and religious institutions. Lu accepts the fact that euthanasia is assisted suicide. However, he states the action as murder since the patient is morally innocent. Lu suggests that murder is killing a person against the judicial systems; meaning that the deceased is not legally guilty of an offense. Therefore, his argument is based on the innocence of patients who are murdered without their approval. Lu notes that the moral innocence of patients does not allow them to surrender their life to doctors or nurses. He compares the euthanasia situation to the condition of suicidal persons; the same way it is illegal for people to kill themselves, so should it be for patients to decide whether or not to lose their lives in medical centers (3). He also notes that the main issue that drives doctors and nurses towards performing euthanasia is that they are convinced that the patients will die soon anyway. Lu is also convinced that just as people are not morally obligated to extend their lives, nobody should take the mandate of ending a life. He states that the perspective of euthanasia to medical practitioners is like justified killing and continues to argue that the action should not be regarded as a self-defense practice. Lu states the importance of legal drugs is to cure patients; and should therefore not be used to cause death.

Smith is much driven by the need to legalize euthanasia since, at the moment, the action is happening without regulation. She suggests that the regulation of this action would mean a great deal on medical records; it will help in solving criminal euthanasia cases that are performed without the patients' consents. Smith also points out that legalization of euthanasia will help in regulation of inconsistent pain and depression control. Smith is much concerned with patients that are undergoing severe pain that cannot be controlled and offers that they should be led through the issue of euthanasia. She argues that patients that are on chronic stages of their illness with minimal signs of recovery should be offered the option of mercy killing.

Lu differs completely with Smith's argument and position on the issue of euthanasia. He argues that just as suicide is self-killing, euthanasia should also be viewed as doctor-killing. He also compares the illegal practice of self-suicide to assisted-suicide. Lu is completely convinced that euthanasia is the same as murder since the doctor would administer a drug to kill patients instead of curing their illness. He notes that doctors are not justified to practice euthanasia only because the patients are undergoing severe illness accompanied by intense suffering. He notes that some medical practitioners do not follow the right steps when considering euthanasia; risks and benefits. Therefore, he suggests that the practice should be made illegal.

Evaluation of the Two Arguments

Smith has a strong point regarding the legalization of euthanasia. Her the fact that the practice will regulate the cases of illegal and consistent euthanasia is also true. However, legalization will not completely regulate unreported and undocumented cases of euthanasia. Smith's argument may be supported by a multitude of non-religious believers that value relief over the life of patients. Apart from regulation and relieving patients from their suffering, Smith does not state more facts that support her argument. Her two points may not be enough evidence to pass the bill of legalizing euthanasia in medical centers. Smith's point on the right to refuse proper treatment is not strong enough to support the bill on euthanasia. The reason is that the point is controversial since patients are not allowed to commit suicide by themselves. Therefore, relating to euthanasia, patients should not be given the right to ask doctors to administer drugs that would lead to their deaths.

Lu, on the other hand, argues ethically and morally to prevent euthanasia from being legalized, and most importantly, being practiced. He has a clear mind since he views euthanasia as it is; assisted suicide which he terms as immoral just as self-killing. Noting down his facts logically, Lu is right to state that doctors should administer medication to cure patients rather than leading them to their deaths. He is saddened by the fact that doctors practice euthanasia as justified killing which he compares with a doctor killing a patient with a gun on the head; he asserts that it does not matter how the practice is conducted since it is immoral and ethically wrong. Evaluating all the facts that Lu states, everyone can realize the logic between his arguments.

Smith argues that they should allow people to die in peace, dignity, and without pain, and they should also allow others to help them to do so if they cannot manage it on their own (1). Secondly, she insists people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies; patients in this case. So it is wrong to make anyone live longer than they want. She points out that making people live when they do not want to violates their freedom and human rights.

Furthermore, she points out that some families may not afford to pay the high cost of medical bills for the terminally ill. Euthanasia will help to ease the financial constraints especially for those in irreversible comas. Moreover, she insists that euthanasia should be allowed to meet the rising demand of organs. This would allow the harvesting of organs from people in a persistent vegetative state or irreversible coma.

Lu believes that life is granted by God, and only He alone should decide when to end it. He continues to say that doctors who perform euthanasia play the role of God. Hence, that is violating the religious doctrines. Secondly, Lu fears that if euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it would be abused and people would be killed who did not want to die. For instance, some family members may plot to kill the patient in scenarios where the patient is wealthy So that they will inherit the victim's wealth.

Besides that, Lu asserts that the pain experienced by the terminally ill patient can be controlled to tolerable levels through proper management. Therefore, he concludes that there is no need for euthanasia (3). By making euthanasia available, some people will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying by their families. This pressure may sometimes occur in very subtle forms. This is a fundamental argument in favor of strict controls that would confirm that others are not negatively influencing a patient.

The Verdict on the Issue of Euthanasia

Lu is proficiently armed with ideas that he can defend himself against euthanasia. His argument clearly states the need to value life without having to think of the suffering that death relieves. Contrary to Lu's stand on euthanasia, Smith is not fully equipped with facts that can defend her from the legalization of euthanasia. Smith's argument on how legalization could regulate irregular practices of euthanasia does not qualify her to win the issue on self-killing.

Lu ethically reasons on the logic of legalizing euthanasia and thinks that the issue is the same as killing a patient. His argument states that patients that have lost their will to live cannot choose euthanasia; just as an innocent individual who wants to commit suicide. Lu values life, especially one that is innocent. He suggests that euthanasia should not be considered in situations that involve suffering. Instead, he prefers that doctors and nurses opt for natural death rather than administering drugs that lead to euthanasia. The immorality that is related to taking measures that could extend life should also be connected to assisted suicide. Smith has two important points but arguing with Lu's ideas rules out her suggestions. The fact that her suggestions might cause some positive change does not beat Lu's stand on euthanasia.

First, basing her defense on the legalization of euthanasia will lead to its regulation does not mean that illegal practices of the same action will not take place. Smith's point rules out her suggestion to pass the bill since most laws are not always followed. Secondly, if the bill is passed, the percentage of reported and recorded cases of euthanasia will rise. This is because patients and medical practitio...