Euthanasia should be allowed Outline

Euthanasiashould be allowed

Outline

Claim

  • Euthanasia should be pursued

Data/Grounds

  • Several people with terminal illnesses request for euthanasia

Warrants

  • euthanasia helps in relieving pain and promoting the well being of terminally ill patients

  • terminally sick people are a burden to themselves and their families

Counterargument

  • It is immoral and unethical for physicians to perform euthanasia

Rebuttal

  • Doctors should promote the well being of patients, and relieving pain through euthanasia is one of the ways of promoting the well being of patients.

Conclusion

  • Euthanasia should be performed for terminally ill patients to ease them off pain and suffering

Euthanasiais an act of ending the life of a terminally ill person with the aimof alleviating pain. In this event, the doctor performs theintervention, but with the consent of the patient (Paterson 14). Ithas become one of the most heated debates in the contemporarysociety. There are several opposing views on the legalization ofeuthanasia. Whereas some are of the view that euthanasia is an act ofsympathy and should be pursued, others feel that it is both immoraland unethical. Despite these differing views, it is indisputable thatit alleviates the suffering of terminally ill patients. As such, withregulations and restrictions, euthanasia should be pursued.

Accordingto Quill (57), several physicians have received requests to performeuthanasia from terminally ill patients and their relatives. However,due to certain regulations guiding physicians, they are unable toperform this act. This is a hard decision for practicing physicianswho, on one hand feel obligated to alleviate the pain of theirpatients while on the other hand, the law forbids them. There arespeculations that some physicians have performed euthanasia despiteits legal status.

Physicalsare mandated to alleviate suffering and pain of patients, includingpromoting the dignity of the dying patients. Euthanasia does thisexactly it helps in alleviating the pain of terminally ill peoplewho have no hopes of ever recovering. It is worth taking note thatpatients who request for euthanasia have no chance of recovering.Such people are usually in great pain and death is their onlysolution to the end of their physical pain. This means that sooner orlater, these patients will die of the same disease, but at a laterstage having suffered a lot. Therefore, it is only wise to eliminatepain of such patients and allow them to die with dignity. It isagreeable that euthanasia meets the principle of alleviating pain andsuffering as is the duty of physicians (Quill 69).

Relativeand friends of patients requesting for euthanasia are also affectedby the suffering of their loved ones. They need to take care of theirterminally ill patients both physically and emotionally. This meansthat they have to keep visiting the patient and take care of them.Further, they have to cater for the hospital bills and otherfinancial obligations. They bear the burden of their patients in manyaspects. This may even render them bankrupt while taking care of aperson who is going to die anyway. The longer it takes for a patientto die, the more the bill increases and other financial problems.Therefore, it is imperative to hasten the death of the terminally illperson and ease the relatives off financial burden. It is pointlessto spend too much on a person who will not recover no matter what.

Onthe other hand, some argue that euthanasia is immoral and unethical.This argument claims that ending one’s life, for whichever reasons,amounts to murder (Biggs 10). As such euthanasia gives physicians anopportunity to kill, rather than cure their patients. People insupport of this view feel that no one has the rights to take away thelife of another. As such, physicians have no rights to kill in thename of mercy. On the contrary, they should focus on restoring thehealth of their patients, and wait for God to do his will. Accordingto them, doctors breach their oath of promoting the wellbeing ofpatients.

However,this argument is disputable. Euthanasia helps in promoting the wellbeing of patients by alleviating their suffering. It is noteworthythat this act is done when it is certain that a patient will notrecover no matter what, and that they will experience pain until theydie. This only worsens the situation as the patient is aware that thepain will never end and that he/she will die eventually. It isdepressing for patients to lie in bed awaiting their death amidstpain and suffering. In such instances, it is only fair for physiciansto help a patient hasten his/her death and cease suffering. Besides,ethics and morals are formulated to promote the well being of all.Thus, morals and ethics should be termed invalid if they fail topromote the well being of all members of the society.

Itis evident that euthanasia is beneficial for terminally ill patientsand their relatives. As such, it is prudent for physicians to acceptthe requests by patients and respect their decisions. People shouldview it as an alternative to treatment for hopeless cases, and helpalleviate pain and suffering permanently. It should be seen as a wayof enhancing the dignity of patients with terminal illnesses, ratherthan an immoral and unethical act. It is pointless to watch peoplesuffer from terminal illnesses awaiting their death when it isoblivious euthanasia can help solve such a problem for good.Therefore, with regulations and restrictions, euthanasia should beallowed (Tulloch 45).

WorksCited

Biggs,Hazel. Euthanasia,Death with Dignity, and the Law.Oxford [England: Hart Publ, 2001. Print.

Paterson,Craig. AssistedSuicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach.Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2008. Print.

Quill,Timothy E. &quotPhysicians Should `Assist In Suicide` When It IsAppropriate.&quot JournalOf Law, Medicine &amp Ethics40.1 (2012): 57-65.

Tulloch,Gail. Euthanasia:Choice and Death.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Print.