Introduction
The use of euthanasia has attracted heated debates (Baird, 2009). Therefore, the legal system should work hand in hand with healthcare shareholders in distinguishing the limits between the patients’ rights and the physicians’ accountability based on the possible life-limiting treatment choices (Chiarella, 2006). Physicians experience dilemmas when trying to offer suitable care and at the same time value the patients’ autonomy. Euthanasia can be classified into two categories. It should be noted that the classifications of euthanasia rely on the differences between active and passive responses that are initiated about the way through which death is undertaken (Young, 2007). Active euthanasia refers to a situation where a medical doctor purposely procures the patient’s demise. On the other hand, passive euthanasia refers to situations where physicians do not purposely procure the patient’s demise. The article below opposes the use of active euthanasia because of its associated drawbacks.
Cons of the practice
Religious institutions believe that active voluntary euthanasia should be abolished because the act illustrates that some lives are less valuable compared with others. According to the opponents of the act, life is a gift of nature and no one should terminate it artificially (Deliens & Bernheim, 2003). With the improvement of medical science, medications and management of sickness have advanced at a very fast pace (Lavi, 2003). In the coming years, the treatment for several terminal diseases may be discovered. For that reason, by procuring euthanasia for patients with terminal diseases there are likelihoods that medics are depriving the patients of opportunities to survive when interventions are discovered in the future.
Another shortcoming of the act is based on the fact that if the action is fully supported physicians may misuse the practice (Deliens & Bernheim, 2003). Religious leaders believe that the act should not be undertaken because it may be misused in some circumstances. Therefore, with the implementation of the practice disputes concerning ethics would arise (Staunton & Chiarella, 2012). It would be challenging to institute how ethical the practice can be or who should consent to the practice. Likewise, concerns concerning how the practice should be carried out and regulated will arise (Scherer, 2010). Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that the practice would attract several criticisms.
In addition, the practice opposes several religious principles. According to the spiritual groups, God is the only one who can give and terminate life (Deliens & Bernheim, 2003). It should be noted that some denominations are more liberal in the practice. For instance, the Anglicans and the Methodists endorse the practice as long as the legal system and the appropriate procedures are followed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be noted that the practice has resulted in several heated debates among physicians, scholars, members of the public, legal systems, and religious groups (Deliens & Bernheim, 2003). Owing to this, several calls for the authorization of euthanasia and assisted death have been made. The calls indicate that all stakeholders should work together in identifying the limits between the patients’ rights and the physicians’ accountability based on the possible life-limiting treatment choices (Singapore Nursing Board, 2015). In this regard, I call upon the stakeholders to oppose the use of active euthanasia in patients with terminal diseases because of its associated drawbacks.
References
Baird, R. (2009). Euthanasia: The moral issues. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Chiarella, M. (2006). Euthanasia: Considerations, Concerns, and Complications. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, 5(2), 53-58.
Deliens, L., & Bernheim, J. (2003). Palliative care and euthanasia in countries with a law on euthanasia.Palliative Medicine, 1(2), 393-394.
Lavi, S. (2003). Euthanasia and the Changing Ethics of the Deathbed. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 3(4).
Scherer, L. (2010). Euthanasia. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Singapore Nursing Board, (2015). Singapore Nursing Codes. Web.
Staunton, P., & Chiarella, M. (2012). Law for nurses and midwives (7th ed.). Chatswood, N.S.W.: Elsevier Australia.
Young, M. (2007). Euthanasia. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.