Why Euthanasia should be Legal

Introduction

For centuries, euthanasia has been known to play an important role in society. At the broadest level, euthanasia can be categorized into three groups: voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. The act of euthanasia is extremely debatable and has multiple perspectives, as it is strictly related to ethical dilemmas. Nowadays, public issues such as euthanasia increasingly arise due to technological advancements in medical services and patients' rights. In the 20th century, there are a number of scarce terminally ill patients whose futures are blurred, leading to moral pressures to assist them in alleviating their anguish (if they request it).

Due to this ambiguous situation, medical practitioners may find themselves at a dead end when addressing this problem, as it relates to ethical practices and patients' quality of life. Euthanasia has been utilized by many societies, becoming a cheap and easy tool to achieve an immediate end to suffering. In ancient times, certain societies considered euthanasia a normal practice. They, so to speak, provided a luxurious opportunity for the patients' families to decide the life and death of their loved ones. It was such a belief because, at that time, people did not yet know how to avoid causing suffering to patients who were terminally ill or those who were severely injured, fearing that a long process would be required to see recovery. By understanding the history of euthanasia, clinicians can be supported by reasons beyond the disease condition, such as religion and the quality of care while the patient is healing. Euthanasia is highly debatable not only because it causes physical or psychological harm based on the disease condition, but also because it morally injures humanity in healthcare providers and clinics. Nowadays, people are increasingly aware of the patients' perspectives, varying in their approaches to ending existential suffering beyond self-devotion, considering the experiences of unwanted and caring support received. Is it ethical for medical practitioners to support or hinder a patient who wishes to end his or her life to avoid established suffering? Conversely, does society also need to criminalize those who have decided to end their lives based on their wishes? All of these standpoints should be frequent considerations in issues that connect with medical activities and legal obligations. Emergency support and care are required during ambiguous periods based on legal treaties. The act of a patient ending their life not only provokes ethical reactions but could also be classified as a full criminal act, impacting healthcare obligations. This can be easily found in legal societal rules over many years, as every reputable healthcare provider should not kill the patient.

Ethical Arguments Supporting Euthanasia Legalization

Euthanasia, the practice of intentionally terminating the life of a patient at the patient’s voluntary and competent request or at the request of a close relative, has been the subject of wide debate internationally. Euthanasia was legalized in some countries. With recent adoptions of these practices, it is crucial to carefully review this complex topic. Ethical and legal perspectives can provide arguments to support the regulation of euthanasia.

The moral principle of autonomy states that people should be able to make choices about their own lives, involving life-sustaining treatment or its discontinuance and end of life and death. By applying the principle of autonomy, some argue that it is both moral and ethically justifiable to end life. A person is entitled to avoid being subjected to interventions or treatments, unpleasant intrusion, or impositions within personal physical, mental, and emotional space. A person is free to choose both the manner and time of death. This principle is also closely tied to the concept of compassion. Legalizing euthanasia and ensuring appropriate regulations can enable a compassionate response in relieving suffering by providing a dignified end of life to those who are terminally ill. Proponents of euthanasia also argue that this practice is a compassionate response to end the intolerable suffering of patients. Further, allowing properly performed euthanasia may resonate with the harm principle and demonstrate the duty of compassion, which implies any good person would act to alleviate pain when it is within their power to do so. Opponents, however, caution that this might especially apply when unbearable suffering is not only a reason to die but rather a reason to help these patients deal with the suffering, supporting palliative care. Again, this leaves unclear the potential role of euthanasia. Abuses that could occur are often cited as reasons to maintain prohibition, as a resulting slippery slope could promote the moral casualness of life. Proponents argue, however, that the emphasis that is laid on abuses overshadows the thousands of cases in which the death of a patient is wanted and is performed with due diligence. The exclusive vein of abuse does strengthen overall condemnation, suggesting a search for a balanced view. Euthanasia and PAS are rooted in individual autonomy, and the right to self-determination is thought by many to be the appropriate individualistic approach. It should be taken into consideration, however, whether society is ready to adopt this principle. Sustainable development, self-determination, faith, and social justice are priorities representing a collectivistic approach. Many cultures prohibit euthanasia. A claim for universal and fundamental ethical perspectives on euthanasia does not exist. This controversial question leaves no room for simplifying ethical positions. These conflicting interests, when insurmountable, inspire the human and professionals in end-of-life care to espouse euthanasia and to implore a professional society to make it lawful and governable.

Legal Frameworks and International Perspectives

In some countries, the question of euthanasia at the end of life is often influenced by varying cultural convictions. In certain cases, non-Western groups within the same country differ considerably in perspective from the majority culture, or the framework may change substantially from one country to another. The euthanasia laws fall into various groups, ranging from overt conscientious objections to banning of the rites to lethal actions when particular criteria are met. Regarding the passing of these laws, some authorities bear a more active or passive role in reaching a wider cabinet. Laws grant immunity to minors in certain countries but leave it to clinical ethics committees or doctors to decide in question areas involving minors.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide appear to show increased activity throughout the world. Incurable or progressive illness is regarded as the primary justification for obtaining the right to die. Palliative care can be confused with the sessions referred to earlier regarding wiping. Palliative care, however, targets those who will also die of their illness but would never give assistance in self-removal or provide pain relief with medication that ends life. Issues specific to a state's attitude toward personal autonomy when determining their death may include: whether or not human rights treaties support euthanasia, the duty of the state to establish a framework and defenses, and whether there is room for the rights of any people, relatives, and criminal investigators to be concerned about harm to society.

Challenges and Controversies in Legalizing Euthanasia

As a public policy matter, the subject of euthanasia attracts a lot of controversy. Broadly speaking, criticisms come from three sides: ethical/moral, professional (legal), and practical. The ethical/moral criticism of euthanasia focuses exclusively on actors' state of mind. Opponents of euthanasia argue that, even if legally sanctioned, some individuals will try to coerce or unduly influence willing patients to hasten their death, thereby rendering the patient's choice invalid. This claim is not debunked by the observation that relatively few mentally competent, seriously ill dying patients are vulnerable with respect to family treatment and societal discrimination. Discussion of broader social implications—does society support either directly or indirectly the practice of euthanasia and whether its legalization will create or add pressure to any certain class of citizens in seeking to hasten death, although feared by some, is generally well received in legislative forums.

These kinds of practices violate society's norm of valuing everyone and are therefore not inconsistent with patient autonomy. Other ethical issues that the legalization of euthanasia might raise include whether there exists an individual and/or collective responsibility to end life because of resource limitations, how to adequately protect and respect innocent agents involved in the provision of euthanasia, and whether providing persons with the means to self-determine the time and circumstances of their own death—insufficiently available at present—does in fact emotionally and socially benefit. All doctors agree in principle on the avoidance of futile treatment. They do not agree, however, on whether it is futile to care for a patient who requests euthanasia. Public opinion is another area that presents complications. Polls taken in various countries from euthanasia supporters are invariably reticent about the practice as a real possibility for themselves. Meanwhile, a large percentage of people who say they oppose euthanasia in principle would never withdraw relief that might inadvertently hasten their death. When the views of two groups must be reconciled, the outcome is pragmatic and not ideal. Moreover, a consensus on whether physicians should help a person to die is not forthcoming. Campaigners cannot simply invoke the weight of public opinion to bolster their cause. The ubiquity of suffering means that euthanasia commands a lot of sympathizers. It also ensures a regular flow of righteous opposition.

Hence, when euthanasia is proposed, it must be done with an abundance of respect or clear courage. Ignoring or minimizing the practical and moral contentions that arise from state-sanctioned killing not only undermines the interests of vulnerable and marginalized populations but also exacerbates a real risk that comes from universalizing a right to die. The regulatory difficulties might include problems with patient determination, data collection, justice, and provision. Alienating a large part of society by supporting a liberal approach to euthanasia is an undesirable situation.

Did you like this example?

244

10