Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Euthanasia

Question: In which Countries and Why Euthanasia is not Legal and Unethical. Answer: Introduction: Euthanasia is a medical term that applies to the deliberate act of killing a patient, who has been suffering from an incurable disease, and has no chance of getting well. Although this is an instance of medical intervention whereby the doctor intends to relieve the patient, the unnatural act of killing a person is considered to be unethical in countries like Canada, Switzerland, Britain and most of the states of the USA. Methodology: In order to understand why Euthanasia is unethical, and why is it banned in other countries, the report employed the use of Qualitative Research Method, whereby secondary information were being collected from different literary articles and magazines, published by scholars, examining the ethical and legal arguments against Euthanasia, and the reasons behind the same (Anneser et al. 2016). Results: From the thorough analysis of the literary articles and published journals, it has been observed that Euthanasia has been considered to be unethical on account of the fact that social thinkers point out that there is something inherently wrong about legalizing unnatural death simply because the patient is suffering from inhuman pain. A research study was being conducted in Oregon in the year of 2013 that claimed that patients chose euthanasia not for alleviating the excruciating pain they were battling with, simply because they did not want to be a burden for others (Subba et al. 2016). Countries such as Switzerland have completely banned Euthanasia, and arranges for medical experts to counsel and morally support terminally ill people (Browne and Russell 2016). Countries like Britain and India also claim that Euthanasia should not be approved as it is a form of assisted suicide. Most importantly, most of the people have protested against Passive Euthanasia, whereby a patient sufferin g from incurable disease, is killed without his consent. The protesters claimed that cessation of the present treatment, and the use of much more effective treatment can easily alleviate the pain of the patient, without killing him. Besides, several medical journals have also claimed that though terminally ill patients are killed through Euthanasia, it is not acceptable, as medical reports suggest that patients diagnosed to be terminally ill had often lived for years, and life span of a patient is usually unpredictable (Snead 2014). Discussion: It has been observed that the major ethical argument against Euthanasia is that it intends to demean and belittle the importance of sanctity of life. While the religious objection claims that any form of life is a part of the divine process, and human intervention should be prevented, the sociologists claimed that Euthanasia endorses the idea that the lives of the sick and disabled people are far less expensive than the lives of the healthy people. This kind of social exclusion of the disadvantageous section of the society is highly unacceptable in countries like India. Further, it should be noted that Euthanasia is deemed to be an easier way of getting away from troubles associated with healthcare provision of the sick and terminally ill people. Scientific studies have strongly suggested that effective palliative care does cure anyone, and allowing Euthanasia will encourage the doctors to neglect their dedication towards curing patients with complex diseases. Besides, according to B BC, the implementation of Euthanasia would also negatively affect the development of new innovative forms of healthcare treatments for complicated diseases, as assisted suicide would always tend to be an easy choice to make (Emanuel et al. 2016). Another very important point here is that the government of any nation is expected to partially bear medical expenses for its residents, but killing him would be a cost effective measure that would contribute to the laid back tendency of the governmental institutions (Sade 2015). For instance, once the Euthanasia law was legalized in Oregon, in the next 18 months, it was observed that little or no fund was being made available on part of the government for its extremely sick and elderly citizens. It is important to note that birth and death both are parts of the natural process, and thus Euthanasia is an example of destructive human intervention that destroys the life of a human being, who is left with no choice often, but to embrace death, being pressurized by the doctors and his family. It is needless to state that legalizing Euthanasia also passes a wrong message to the society, and might encourage teenagers to commit suicide with greater ease, as a means of solving trivial problems of life. Conclusion: To conclude, it should be remembered that Euthanasia cannot be justified under any condition, as the very concept itself tends to undermine the importance of human life and dignity, and offers death as the easiest alternative. Euthanasia not only passes a social message that is ethically wrong, but it also does injustice to the patients. References Anneser, J., Jox, R.J., Thurn, T. and Borasio, G.D., 2016. Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and palliative sedation: attitudes and knowledge of medical students.GMS journal for medical education,33(1). Browne, A. and Russell, J.S., 2016. Physician-assisted death in Canada.Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics,25(03), pp.377-383. Emanuel, E.J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B.D., Urwin, J.W. and Cohen, J., 2016. Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe.Jama,316(1), pp.79-90. Sade, R.M., 2015. Can a physician ever justifiably euthanize a severely disabled neonate?.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery,149(2), pp.532-532. Snead, O.C., 2014. Carter Snead lecture" Physician Assisted Suicide: Objections in Principle and in Prudence". Subba, S.H., Khullar, V., Latafat, Y., Chawla, K., Nirmal, A. and Chaudhary, T., 2016. Doctors Attitude Towards Euthanasia: A Cross-sectional Study.Journal of The Association of Physicians of India,64, p.44.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.