Introduction
This essay disagrees with the position that Euthanasia is the best option to terminate patients’ lives. The basis for this position is found in the three articles that take the view, in different degrees that prolonging patient’s lives are much better than assisting in their suicide. We lay out the argument within the scope of emotional, legal, and ethical issues.
Body of the paper
Much has been written about Oregon’s Death with Dignity act that makes assisted suicide legal. Now the advocates for the same have been proposing to introduce the act in other states as well and in particular, Washington. However, there is a strong case for helping terminally ill patients spend the remainder of their lives with care provided by the medical fraternity and with support from the state and insurance companies. As Rheba De Tornany says in her column, spending time with loved ones even if they do not have much time to live is an emotionally satisfying experience. And care for these patients is made possible by hospice nursing and advanced technologies that are available commonly, ironically, due to the efforts of the assisted suicide activists. Watching a loved one in pain is difficult and heart-wrenching. But, what is more, enriching is seeing them end their life peacefully with dignity is something that would be closer to the heart.
The other reason why assisted suicide or Euthanasia is a dangerous proposition is that strict regulation is needed to ensure that the laws on assisted suicide are not misused. According to Joel Connelly, there are many documented cases of elderly patients who have been pressurized to die. This may be due to a desire for financial gain from the relatives or more commonly, to avoid paying huge costs for treatment. There are issues with both the former as well as the latter. In the case of patients and their families unable to bear the cost of treatment, there can be provisions by the state to support terminally ill patients.
The compelling ethical argument against Euthanasia is that physicians’ reports on whether a patient can be allowed to die to fall outside of the purview of the medical norms and such a decision is fraught with errors of poor judgment and the like.
Conclusion
The current debate on the issue is drawing deep divisions on both sides with religious fundamentalists on one hand and liberals on the other hand. Thus, the question of choosing, either way, has become contentious. However, what this paper recommends is that options other than ending terminally ill patient’s lives should be explored. And in this, the state has a prominent role to play.