Euthanasia Debate

Euthanasia – the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of HOPELESSLY sick or injured
individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.

Killing – the act of one that kills.

Kill – to deprive of life; cause the death of

Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice

Ethics - a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

Suicide - the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally

PRO

The field of medicine inasmuch as its job is concerned desire to preserve life as the ultimate end of every
practicing professionals in this domain. The Hippocratic oath embodies this code in ethics that it is a
duty of every practitioner to uphold life over death to any human being regardless of status, race,
culture, or identity. Inferred from this explanation is the fact that we must uphold maximal amount of
effort to save lives in the highest rate possible.

A doctor does not have to act contrary to their own beliefs but they do have an obligation to accept the
patient’s beliefs, and not to impose their own beliefs onto their patients. … It’s important to remember
that a doctor cannot discriminate and refuse to see a patient on the basis of religion or race or gender
etc. (Bpmed.gov, 2018)

Despite those efforts however, is the right of the patient to his own life and the physician’s duty towards
his patients that leads us to have the option of euthanasia as the last resort in upholding the good that
we desire to embody.

Now, the opposition/government side might argue in the ethical viewpoint in considering this foresights
as inhumane and unethical, but that is really to misunderstand on what ethical outlooks should be
considered inasmuch as life with excruciating pain is concerned.

The Principalism theory of ethics highlight the use of ethical principles of beneficence (which is to do
good), nonmaleficence (do no harm), autonomy (respect for the person’s ability to act in his own best
interest), and veracity (which is telling the truth) that may be at work in managing ethical dilemmas
(Chitty & Black, 2011).

Considering the theory and the definition of Euthanasia, there is no conflict between these factors that
are to be considered at all. For example, Euthanasia is permitting the death of a Hopelessly sick or
injured individual, the Euthanasia is highly applicable in beneficence principle because the intention and
the act concerned lies in an insurmountable effort to end pain from a person that will die anyway in a
very painful manner, so better end it in a peaceful and acceptable manner than prolong pain which will
result in the same end. Now the argument underlies on “why are we hopeless?”. First of, the context is
not on being hopeless in the person’s soul but on the pain that he has that we know will not end. For
instance, let me highlight a thought experiment; a person is suffering a terminal case of bone cancer
and still have two months to live, he is bearing extreme amount of pain and suffering in every day he
survives and the doctor knows that his body is hopeless of recovery despite medicinal efforts, and he
and the patient know it, and the patient know that he’s too weak to survive and wants to end his
suffering. What option do you have to preserve goodness? This is not to be hopeless on the person’s
matter of living but this is to uplift his right to have a peaceful and acceptable death.

Nonmaleficence, which is to do no harm, also goes in accordance with the procedure of a euthanasia
which is a wish of a peaceful death. For example, the use of lethal injection, sleeping gas, or other
physician-assisted death is a surreal guarantee that humane act is properly executed. There is no harm
involved since the person is treated with the medicine that puts a person to sleep without him knowing
of his own death. And if pain is possible, then at least as minimal as possible.

Autonomy is the person’s own decision to end his own life, which he have the knowledge that he is
incurable and he will bear the harm of his own disease if he has prolonged pain along the years to come
by. It is his freedom to die with his own permission and not one person have the right to remove it from
him since it is part of his nature as a human person to have that level of liberty. Now, what if he permits
it but his love ones would not? Well, the answer would be absolute, autonomy is the thing that is to be
upheld; but if not possible, then both parties must come to a decisive choice on whether to continue or
whether not to continue one’s decision of ending the life. Now the opposition/government might argue,
what if the person is in comatose, how will he decide? Let us consider first, is the person really hopeless?
Does the person still have the chance on recovery? And if still have the chance to live, then decline the
process. We must also consider the family, on behalf of the person’s autonomy, the family are the
representative of that person and should be the one to decide. That is, considering the situation of
survival and the chance of recovery. And euthanasia, respectably, is the last resort that is to be
considered, contrary to what the opposition/government might think of it as a first-hand option or a
readily available choice.

According to John Stuart Mill of the Ethical theory of Utilitarianism, acts should be classified as morally
right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the
agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner. In assessing the
consequences of actions, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something is held to
be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their
worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists;
i.e, they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone
are of intrinsic value and disvalue. (Britannica.com)

In this theory of ethics, we are able to highlight that goodness are to be hailed if it result in happiness
that we are to gain. Note, however, that it is not to misinterpret happiness as merely a pure
embodiment of emotion without considering rationality. Let us highlight another thought experiment
for example, if you are doing your duty as a moral person, and in this case you are the patient or the
physician trying not to end life, and everyone else are seeing you do it, would it still be considered good
and righteous when it arrives in a very painful and burdening result, or is it about our arrogance that we
want to let that person suffer for the sake of our standards? You see, the duty that we are having as
people living in ethical perspective is there because we want to pursue morals for the reason that it will
benefit us. Now, how does that justify euthanasia? Of course, in the part where both parties are in good
situation and are maximizing their utility to uplift righteousness by upholding the good, they are not just
being happy but they are preserving things in a humane manner without neglecting the ethics.

CONS

The support of utility is undignifying to any human soul who thinks about it even for a second because
not only does it neglect duty towards human life, but it limits the virtue of any person solely because of
favoring emotion or sense of utility. Just because we feel that it is good, does not necessarily prove it
good. For example, even if you uplift utility to happiness, you are still mixing feelings and emotion to
justify killing. Killing no matter the justification is still killing. No matter the process of death in
euthanasia, the ultimate end of that goal still results in killing. And not just mere killing a pig or cow, but
of your own kind, a human soul.

To the patient, no matter the autonomy given, no matter the acceptance of that death, permitting
yourself be killed is still a suicide, or worse, murder. The Webster’s dictionary defined suicide as “the act
or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally”; taking that at hand, even if the
death is prepared and already accepted, it is still undignifying, considering there is an intent involve in
taking one’s own life and the worst case is that it is committed towards the self.

The argument of autonomy in the opposition’s/government’s context is highly paradoxical. Because

autonomy is there to uplift his welfare and his life, and even keep it from possible harm no matter the
burden since it is his duty towards his self to keep respect in the human life, respectably in its very
essence, and if not for his body, then at least for the consciousness.

Furthermore, a person have the right to choose for himself in the first place in order to uphold his
protection of his very own life. Clearly, that is taken out of context by the opposing house.
Philosophically speaking , it (the autonomy) should not be used to end the agent that sustain that
autonomy, so as to preserve the liberty that the person that have the human essence or the soul. Ladies
and gentlemen death is an eternal suffering of oblivion, let us not be pursued by powerful words to
justify killing of anyone because it is just clear body of linguistic art to lower our protection towards our
duty for the human rights.

The same argument applies with the nonmaleficence. But to present another worthy argument, do no
harm, that is what it means; it is the duty of every medical practitioner to assess life as much as possible
and it is solely applicable in saving lives, note: SAVING, not ENDING, because otherwise, how can we
apply the do no harm to the dead when it can not even perceive what is and what is not harm?

The beneficence, again, done to preserve lives. Are we really doing good in marking death as the
ultimate embodiment of goodness against pain? Of course, we sympathize to the people who are feeling
the pain, but let us go back to the fact, what is good in dying? Supposed you end the pain but in the
same end you also end the virtue of enduring suffering for the sake of morals, where is the good in that?
Just happiness? It is not at all justifiable. And so to think that death is the ultimate option in choosing
good because it neglects pain, then in a general sense we are also tolerating that it is ok because
someone is hopeless, so he is better dead anyway. A very “neglective” idea and very dangerous to win.

Perhaps the opposition/government is bound with pride. So much pride that it would even use ethics
that are there to support life and use it to take it (life) instead. So keep eyes awake and think, don’tbuy
your emotion, and live morally, end euthanasia even the thought of it to bring forth end towards
disrespect of the human dignity.