Euthanasia: The Human Opinion Versus the Facts, Essay Example

Euthanasia, also termed as ‘mercy killing’ is often referred to as the process of easing one’s pain through death. Most often than not, such a process is considered for patients who are diagnosed with terminal cases. The desire of not being able to feel the pain of lengthened medication is most often used by doctors , family members and even patients themselves as they decide to undergo euthanasia. Nevertheless, even though this process of ‘easing the pain’ have been practiced for so many years in the health industry, several ethical questions still rise especially in connection to its legality and the fact that it may not be as humane as it is assumed to be.

In the writing of William May entitled Rising to the Occasion of our Death, the author describes euthanasia as a classic display of human cowardice. The desire to be eased out from the pains of medication or of anything else is considered by May as seemingly the presentation of how humans want to escape anything that might make them feel uncomfortable. In this case, he insists that euthanasia should be undergone with more specific rules, more insisting approvals and a much better founded basis that could further support the idea of mercy killing or euthanasia in a less-cowardly manner. Facing up death according to May is a reality of life. One’s capacity to face death itself makes that person realize the real essence of living. Understandably, May does not confer with torture nor with toleration but he does expect humans to be humans hence accepting every reality that it offers. People living around patients who are nearly dying often do not want to confer to such idealism. Their reasons are often simple. It could be that they simply do not want to prolong the agony, nor do they want to put their loved one in more pain. On the other end, patients who volunteer to be killed or to undergo euthanasia often feel that the prolonged medication would only be a burden to their families. Relatively, such condition is what makes it easier for them to decide to die in a directed manner. At some point, some patients do not really want to undergo the agonizing pain of treatment. What makes the decisions rather questionable is the idea that there are instances when patients who are willing to undergo euthanasia still have fair chances of survival. However, they already feel tired or somehow degenerated from all the different treatments they have undergone or perhaps they are already feeling hopeless about their case that they decide that death would be the best solution. In the article of May, he presents a doctor on a van who meets with patients requesting to be killed through euthanasia. This practitioner has been described by May as somewhat an agent of death. He meets with patients in food houses and performs euthanasia in his van. May strongly considered this as unethical as he believes that the process of euthanasia should be a properly informed decision and the ones authorized to do it should only be those who can actually determine that a person do not have any chances of living anymore. Perhaps aiming to channel resources to more hopeful health patients than on the hopeless cases, appointed healthcare practitioners should be able to decipher carefully whether the patient wanting euthanasia should actually receive it.

On the other end, Sidney Hook draws from her personal experience as she explains how euthanasia should be viewed especially by patients who think of themselves to be hopeless in her article entitled For Debate and Analysis: In defense of voluntary euthanasia. In this article, she tries to present her own life story and how her decision of undergoing euthanasia [which was shunned by her doctor] became the deciding point on how she actually sees the idea of assisted suicide. The argument that Hook presents is almost the same as that of May. In a way, they both agree that individuals or practitioners who would be given the capacity to impose euthanasia on parents should be those not only knowledgeable about the process but should also be knowledgeable about the patient’s case. Relatively, only those who know the case of the patient being diagnosed and treated would know any possibilities of recovery or if the patient is indeed facing terminal situations and should be given full capacity to decide for their life.

Considering the written works of both Hook and May, it could be assumed that they do not completely disagree with mercy killing or euthanasia. Instead, they simply want to promote what is necessary. Both authors then consider the opinion of an informed physician who is able to see the possibility of recovery versus death as a valued basis for the completion of the decision of imposing euthanasia on a patient. Relatively though, it should be remembered that life is life even though it is already nearing death. The reality of living lies on the capacity and willingness of one to live through each and every phase of life. Should medication be a punishment? No, definitely not. However, immediately deciding on one’s course of life or death within an immediate point of time should not be the basis of such justification of euthanasia versus medication. Through the years, the ethical condition of accepting euthanasia as a valid, ethical and moral assumption of life for those who are facing death has created a sense of debate and argument between healthcare practitioners and human rights advocates. If a person has the right to live, does he also have the right to choose death when necessary? This question will continue to loom over the heads of the enthusiasts and the health practitioners who are often faced with cases of terminal diagnosis and patients wanting to take the short cut to their rest. Nevertheless, it is expected that such source of tension and disagreement in the field of healthcare provision industry could be given more moral distinction hence making it easier to accept on whether or not a specific case should be allowed to undergo euthanasia as an easy from the pain of medical treatment and from the pain of living with incurable ailments.

References:

Hook, S. For Debate and Analysis: In defense of voluntary euthanasia.

May, W. Rising to the Occasion of our Death.