Euthanasia,+should+or+shouldn't+we?+-Final

Euthanasia: Should or Shouldn’t we? David Jeong Escuela Internacional Sampedrana

Abstract Euthanasia is one of the greatest topics on which great debates have been set. Due to the sensibility of the matter, many people refuse to give a definite answer when asked for his or her opinion about the legalization of euthanasia. In many places of the world, families have been bombarded with medical bills and mental problems due to the fact that there is a patient in the family insidiously using up all of the family’s fortune and energy. Euthanasia is not common due to the predominant idea that killing is unethical and therefore should be banned. If you are to be put in such situation, where yourself or a family of yours is dying, what would you do?

Euthanasia: A deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable sufferings (Harris, 2001, p.367).

If you are to be handicapped for the rest of your life, with unbearable pain excruciating your body eternally, would you prefer to end your life and be released from the suffering or would you rather stay alive and suffer from the chronic pain? Euthanasia is prohibited by law in Honduras and most of the other countries, but people should be allotted the freedom to choose death if they are to suffer unbearable pain for the rest of their lives without any hope of recovering.

Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means. An individual may use a euthanasia machine to perform active voluntary euthanasia on himself/herself (Wikipedia, 2010). Some countries, such as Mexico, allow only passive euthanasia, which entails the withholding of common treatments necessary for the continuance of life (Lundin, 2009). Euthanasia might appear to be easy; death by injecting lethal substance to the patient or unplugging the machine where the patient’s life depends on. However, euthanasia is conducted after many agreements and assiduous examinations to ensure the inability of the patient to recover from present state. Today in 2010, there are only a few countries that allow active euthanasia to be conducted legally; these countries are: Albania, Belgium, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherland, Switzerland and United States (Wikipedia, 2009). In most states of the United States, euthanasia is considered illegal. The only states where euthanasia is legal are Oregon and Washington. Euthanasia is still being debated on many parts of the world.

Director Michael Moore launched his documentary “Sicko” in 2007, which dealt with one of the greatest factors that influence the euthanasia decision to be made: economical reasons. Sicko deals about the high cost medical bills that limit the access of the citizens to a health center. It is an undeniable fact that people requiring medical equipment’s support to sustain their lives have to pay an unbearable amount of money (New York Times, 2007). Supporters of patients suffering from chronic disease or ailment inevitably go bankrupt after some time of financial support. President Obama and many other politicians are trying to reform the cost control in the health care industry. One idea that politicians on neither the left nor the right will touch due to political sensibilities, however, could be the easiest way to save billions of dollars without affecting health care quality at all: legalizing euthanasia (Smith, 2007). Euthanasia would save billions of dollars without impinging the health care quality, but the clash between different points of views withheld the legalization of assisted death.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” –First Amendment. People are to make free decisions and those decisions are to be respected. If you know you are a useless disturbance to the fellow family members and unbearable pain is to excruciate your body, would you decide to die, to relieve from pain and allow a new path for your beloved family? Our society had demanded for individual rights over the past centuries, but in terms of euthanasia, family members just would not let the patient die, even though it is the patient’s desire to face demise. In 2006, an Italian activist Piergiorgio Welby, publicly declared his wish to refuse the medical treatment that kept him alive (Fisher, 2006). His claims were refused by both the church and the government. After years of claims and demands, he was given the right to die, the first euthanasia performed in Italy. As seen in this case, people’s decisions are to be respected to full extent; after all it is the patient’s choice to die. To make sure it was the patient’s wish to face death, euthanasia should always be conducted with the consent of the patient.

Concerning the supporters and family members, euthanasia is the right choice to be made, not only in pecuniary terms but also in mental health of the relatives. “Although some stress may have a positive effect on us, excessive or prolonged stress can lead to physical and emotional exhaustion” (Mental Health Foundation, 2001). Maintaining the patient breathing is morally right, but no one can prevent the insidious decline of the family structures. A body in delicate conditions in the house is enough to produce stress on a person. A person under stress is less likely to perform well on daily activities and fail to give his or her full potential at work (Viner, 1999, p. 391). Supporters of a chronic ill person state that it would be a relief if the patient ceases to exist, but fear that this kind of action would be too unethical. If the patient dies after a long-time struggle, the family members are more likely to suffer from bad physical conditions and ailment rather than relief gained by discarding a source of stress. According to utilitarianism, euthanasia would be considered a good choice since it benefits a great number of people. Once in this situation, where a fellow relative is the patient, would you agree with this theory?

Have you ever imagined being in a situation where your voice is muted and your gestures, even your blinks, are paralyzed? You can hear everything people around you say, just cannot respond, and hear that the people are willing to end your life. It is not your will to die, but how to tell them? People against euthanasia frequently claim euthanasia to be unethical because it ends the life of one when he or she might still be struggling to survive. Homeostasis: every cell tries to regulate its internal environment and tend to maintain a stable condition (Marieb & Hoehn, 2007). The definition of Homeostasis given above explains all. It is an instinct of every organism to survive, even in the harshest environment by maintaining stable inner conditions.

Cells try to survive, Human are made of cells, Therefore, humans try to survive.

According to the syllogism above, human, which is made up of cells, must have the same behaviors of a cell, which in this case is the effort to survive. But how can we know for certain it is the patient’s will to survive? It is impossible to tell in case the body is not responding absolutely to any stimuli. Cells are organisms, I agree, and killing is considered unethical in every culture’s standards. Those who claim killing is unethical and therefore euthanasia should be banned should know that the expected lifespan of the diagnosed patient is not long, and besides, the body suffers unbearable pain while it is alive. This is a mercy killing, which will bring positive consequences to both sides. The body will no longer suffer pain and the relatives will have one of the sources of stress exterminated. Euthanasia should be allowed, but thoroughly inspected beforehand to prevent it from being used in wrong purposes.

Euthanasia should be allowed if and only if the patient had given authorization prior to the accident, when he or she had enough conscience to make moral choices. Without a doubt euthanasia is a double-sided blade, with its pros and cons. The society is not yet ready to adopt euthanasia, or maybe it just fears euthanasia to be used in evil purposes, such as attempt to overtake a relative’s fortune and properties. It is hard to find a balance in this sensitive matter, and the debate shall last for a couple of centuries more. People should be given the freedom to choose whether to die or not, just as the freedom to vote or speak.

References Fisher, I. (December 21, 2006). //Euthanasia Advocate in Italy Dies.// Retrieved from : [|New York Times]

Harris, NM. (Oct 2001). "//The euthanasia debate//.". J R Army Med Corps 147 (3) p.367–70

Lundin, L. (2009-08-02). [|//"YOUthanasia"//]. Criminal Brief. Retrieved from: [] Marieb, E & Hoehn, K (2007). //Human Anatomy & Physiology// //(Seventh ed.)//. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

Mental Health Foundation. (2000). //Stress.// Retrieved from: http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/information/mental-health-a-z/stress/

New York Times. (2007, November 25). //The high cost of health care.// Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25sun1.html

Smith, J. (2009, June 20). [|//Save Money by Killing the Sick: Euthanasia as Health Care Cost Containment Not Such a Parody as the Author May Think//]//.// Retrieved from: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/06/20/save-money-by-killing-the-sick-euthanasia-as-health-care-cost-containment-not-such-a-parody-as-the-author-may-think/ Viner, R. (1999). [|//Putting Stress in Life: Hans Selye and the Making of Stress Theory//] //Social Studies of Science//, Vol. 29, No. 3. (Jun., 1999), pp. 391-410 Wikipedia. (2010, March 8). //Legality of Euthanasia.// Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia 1269045939