Introduction
Among the many modern problems, there are those that are rapidly ceasing to be personal and turning into social and national ones. This fully applies to euthanasia, a process that allows a person to leave life on a voluntary basis. At the moment, medicine has made a significant leap in the treatment of diseases, but there are still severe and incurable diseases that cause incredible torment. This process comes in various forms: purposely abandoning maintenance therapy is known as passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia involves giving the individual suffering medications or taking other steps to ensure a swift and painless death. The issue of euthanasia is discussed practically in all areas related to medicine. Thus, this topic will remain relevant for a long time. The problem of euthanasia with all responsibility can be called one of the most controversial and still unresolved issues of modern times. A real struggle is unfolding among lawyers, philosophers, physicians, sociologists, and theologians. The main argument in this struggle is legal prohibitions and permits.
Arguments For
A special attitude manifests in the fact that the patients have a comprehensive right to dispose of their own lives as necessary. If a person suffers from an incurable disease and does not want to live anymore, doctors have no right to interfere with the patient (Cayetano-Penman et al. 69). In addition, it is necessary to take into account the right of a suffering person to get rid of the suffering of loved ones. Relatives of patients may experience intense emotions as a result of an incurable sickness; thus, they may try to lessen this pain by relieving loved ones of the responsibility (Brinkman‐Stoppelenburg et al. 2323). The desire to die, in this case, can be considered a wish to get rid of the hardships of their loved ones.
An essential aspect of this matter is the quality of life argument. There may be such situations associated with an incurable disease and excruciating suffering that life itself loses value for the patient: the quality of life decreases to a critical level, after which comes the desire to die. Accordingly, medicine (one of the main goals of which is to ensure the patient’s quality of life) is powerless and has the right to allow euthanasia in such a situation. In such extraordinary circumstances, euthanasia is not regarded as cruelty or a crime but, on the contrary, as compassion. There is also an economic factor – the resources spent on supporting a notoriously incurable, hopeless patient can be directed to saving people who have a chance (Cayetano-Penman et al. 73). In addition, the fact that the disposal of one’s own life is an inalienable right of every person should not be omitted.
Arguments Against
The fundamental issue is that it raises the likelihood of diagnostic and prognostic mistakes on the part of the physician. This is a convincing argument since, in jurisdictions where active euthanasia is permitted in some capacity, its use in each case necessitates independent verification of the original diagnosis and prognosis (Evenblij et al.). In the issue of active euthanasia, in addition to all the above aspects, the very essence of the termination of life is added. Euthanasia is a practice that undermines the medical community’s core values (Miller et al. 88). Doctors should not kill: the preservation of human life is the highest value of medical practice.
In addition, it is possible to abuse or unjustified its application to an increasing number of people, including for selfish purposes. Perhaps for these reasons, active euthanasia, although sometimes it seems the most dignified and merciful way out, is still prohibited in most countries (Inbadas et al. 146). Furthermore, the legalization of euthanasia will negatively affect the further development of medicine, as it can significantly weaken the aspirations of doctors to seek new means of treatment or assistance for incurable diseases and conditions. The introduction of euthanasia will require significant work to create a legislative framework. To determine when euthanasia is acceptable and when it is not, it is necessary to create legal and medical standards (Pesut et al. 156). It will be necessary to formulate an exhaustive list of medical tests to establish the possibility of euthanasia and conduct the necessary research for this.
Conclusion
Consequently, there are many opinions; for each argument, there is a refutation and vice versa. The legalization of euthanasia is a very responsible decision, where neither one nor two factors play a fundamental role, but a whole set: the religiosity of society, the level of education, the level of medicine, the level of morbidity of people, the attitude of society to death, the number of the population. Euthanasia cannot be viewed as the only option in the battle against lethal diseases. Scientists will develop new methods and means of therapy for these pathologies, but until this happens, the torment of people will continue. Hence, the role of euthanasia in the life of modern society remains relatively high. It should be noted that euthanasia is associated with a complex moral problem. Namely, how should doctors treat situations when medical care in the usual sense will no longer be useful and the patient is in a serious, incurable condition and is experiencing significant suffering?
Works Cited
Brinkman‐Stoppelenburg, Arianne, et al. “Physicians’ and Public Attitudes Toward Euthanasia in People with Advanced Dementia.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 68, no. 10, 2020, pp. 2319–2328, doi:10.1111/jgs.16692.
Cayetano-Penman, Joy, et al. “Nurses’ Perceptions and Attitudes About Euthanasia: A Scoping Review.” Journal of Holistic Nursing, vol. 39, no. 1, 2020, pp. 66–84, doi:10.1177/0898010120923419.
Evenblij, Kirsten, et al. “Physicians’ Experiences with Euthanasia: A Cross-Sectional Survey Amongst a Random Sample of Dutch Physicians to Explore Their Concerns, Feelings and Pressure.” BMC Family Practice, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, doi:10.1186/s12875-019-1067-8.
Inbadas, Hamilton, et al. “Representations of Palliative Care, Euthanasia and Assisted Dying Within Advocacy Declarations.” Mortality, vol. 25, no. 2, 2019, pp. 138–150, doi:10.1080/13576275.2019.1567484.
Miller, David Gibbes, et al. “Advance Euthanasia Directives: A Controversial Case and Its Ethical Implications.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 45, no. 2, 2018, pp. 84–89, doi:10.1136/medethics-2017-104644.
Pesut, Barbara, et al. “Nursing and Euthanasia: A Narrative Review of the Nursing Ethics Literature.” Nursing Ethics, vol. 27, no. 1, 2019, pp. 152–167, doi:10.1177/0969733019845127.