Essay Example: Arguments Against Euthanasia

Terminal illnesses without cure prove to be very costly at the end of the patients lives. By the time these diseases reach a terminal stage where the patient has no hope for recovery, the families of the patient are left with no money to support their kin on life support. At the same time, the patient has undergone a lot of trauma and intense pain that has to be managed with palliative measures only. At this moment, there arise discussions of euthanasia, which have hitherto remained controversial in the medical and social spheres. There have been a clear divide between the opponents and advocates of euthanasia. The proponents equate this action to murder and suicide, while the advocates view it as nothing short of compassion. There is no side that has won this controversial debate that is literally a matter of life and death. However, there ought to be an ultimate decision for the family, the patient, and the physician. In some cases, the patient is too weak to make a rational decision, and the family has to decide whether to keep their relative on life support. Doctors seem to have little influence on this decision once they declare the patient terminally ill. However, due to the high demand for the life support machine, they may advise the family to induce euthanasia or even undertake it covertly without the consent of either the family or the patients. Euthanasia should, therefore, be disallowed at all cost since it provides a channel for the rogue doctors to end the lives of patients who have not reached their point of natural death. Euthanasia is also tantamount to suicide for the patients and murder for the inducer regardless of the consent by the patient or the relative, both of which are contrary to the laws of the land the teachings of religion on the sacredness of life.

The discourse on euthanasia has been defeated on numerous occasions. In the legal sphere, many judges saw euthanasia as suicide or murder. According to Bachman et al. (1996), the state of Michigan has seen several litigations against the opponents of euthanasia. Most of these have been defeated in court with reference to the constitutional bill of rights. The few that have passed have been challenged in a higher court and found to lack any merit. These legal cases prove that euthanasia is not lawful and denies the patient their sacred right to life (Bilsen et al., 2009). Some cases of euthanasia are not under the influence of the patient. Once the physician declares the patient as terminally ill, the family may decide to induce euthanasia for the patient without the latters consent. The law is particularly defensive of this patient who is debilitated to speak and make a pronouncement of their will to live. There is no scientific method to show that the patient accepts to die when they do not have the ability to speak or make a sound judgment.

There is an apparent trend towards acceptance of patient assisted suicide in the United States among physicians, patients, and the general population. 60 percent of patients in hospices are insisting on doctor assisted death while a further 10% are seriously considering it (Quill et al., 2008). These patients have a certain socio-cultural profile that does not represent the general population. In particular, they are white, have a medical cover, and can afford to pay for the hospice. Interestingly, these patients have already complained about poor management of their pain at the hospice. Some of them complain about unrelenting pain and unmanaged difficulty in breathing (Quill et al., 2008). The observation in hospices is arguably the one that is prompting the euthanasia proposition that is unfortunately getting a backing in the general healthcare setup. Therefore, even patients with terminal illnesses, who have not complained about any challenges in health care provision, will be murdered in the name of legalized euthanasia. According to Quill et al. (2008), patients that have sought assisted suicide either have cancer, neurologic diseases or AIDS. It means, therefore, that patients who are brain dead say after an accident do not wish to die and legalizing euthanasia would promote the killing of such category of patients.

In The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Gorsuch (2009) writes in length about the constant defeat of legal cases that have been taken to the courts in Washington, Oregon, and New York seeking to either legalize euthanasia or lift the exiting bans on the practice. He seems to criticize the proponents of the legalization of the practice by citing how they have all along sought the following of the public on the matter. The formation of the Euthanasia Society of America was the culmination of their desperate move to push forward the agenda. Gursch (2009) praises the courts for fervently maintaining their position on the constitutional position against any form of murder or suicide. In the last three chapters of the book, the author cites the superiority of the moral and the common laws over isolated propositions by advocacy groups. He cites that there are issues surrounding euthanasia like the withdrawal of life supporting drugs by incompetent doctors. Indeed, legalization of euthanasia would promote associated crimes like the deliberate withdrawal of funds for the establishment of intensive care units. Any attempt of accepting euthanasia would also jeopardize the level of care given to patients with illnesses proving hard to cure (Materstvedt et al., 2003). It would also delay the research and development efforts in the discovery of drugs to treat neurological diseases (de Boer et al., 2010). Most of these diseases do not have cure, although the scientific community is optimistic that drugs against these diseases are in the offing. This optimism is created by the downstream demand for these drugs by many patients lying in their deathbeds waiting for cure. Mandating the physician to take the lives of these patients will remove the demand and frustrate the efforts of scientists who have invested their time in this research.

The controversy surrounding euthanasia is a long standing one. It is a question of moral and legal importance among physicians, lawyers, and the general public. It has always been defeated in court over its apparent support for the rogue practice of withdrawing life support care for terminally ill patients that could otherwise recover after some more time. Terminally ill patients are sometimes too weak to make decisions on the course of their care. This issue raises concern over patients autonomy. Allowing euthanasia in the general healthcare would deny the right to life of people who wish to live a little longer, since this legalization stems from the observation among hospice patients who receive dismal care. There are numerous disadvantages of euthanasia whose weaknesses are centered on the sacredness of life.

References

Bachman, J. G., Alcser, K. H., Doukas, D. J., Lichtenstein, R. L., Corning, A. D., & Brody, H. (1996). Attitudes of Michigan physicians and the public toward legalizing physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(5), 303-309.

Bilsen, J., Cohen, J., Chambaere, K., Pousset, G., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Mortier, F., & Deliens, L. (2009). Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(11), 1119-1121.

de Boer, M. E., Droes, R. M., Jonker, C., Eefsting, J. A., & Hertogh, C. M. (2010). Advance directives for euthanasia in dementia: Do law-based opportunities lead to more euthanasia?. Health Policy, 98(2), 256-262.

Gorsuch, N. M. (2009). The future of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Princeton University Press.Materstvedt, L. J., Clark, D., Ellershaw, J., Forde, R., Gravgaard, A. M. B., Muller-Busch, H. C., ... & Rapin, C. H. (2003). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a view from an EAPC Ethics Task Force. Palliative Medicine, 17(2), 97-101.

Quill, T. E., Lo, B., & Brock, D. W. (2008). Palliative options of last resort: a comparison of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, terminal sedation, physician-assisted suicide, and voluntary active euthanasia. In Giving death a helping hand (pp. 49-64). Springer Netherlands.