Those who do not advocate for euthanasia frequently pose the debate that it would be recommended to allow a patient in a vegetative state to die rather than to actively take them out of life.
Morally, physicians are allowed to voluntarily cut off patients’ drinking, eating and drugs taking or sedating the patient and leaving the rest to nature, but it is not permissible in morality terms to facilitate a patient’s means of committing suicide or administer hastening measures for death.
This is a complicated and very demanding issue to get a definite stand. The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of whether from this point of view Euthanasia is morally acceptable (Daniel, 1999).
For this discussion to be feasible there is need to know how to determine morally permissible actions. That is, some of the factors which make such actions different in moral grounds.
All actions according to general knowledge are composed of intent and aftermaths, and it is this part that goes further to determine whether an action is moral or not. There are varied philosophical conventions which prefer either intent or consequences, while others are proponents of totally separate factors.
Conversely, there is no intention of moving further to through the demanding role of assessing this issue from all philosophical perspectives, which would rather be not feasible (Ashley & O’Rourke, 2001).
Most probably majority of individuals have went through experiences with relatives and friends who physically and psychologically suffered before death occurred. In other instances, some people are at the moment undergoing the grievous moment with may be a friend or a relative suffering terminal disease.
This is mostly in the last stages of such diseases as Cancer, AIDS and Diabetes where the victim is normally in a vegetative state with chances of recovering scaling at zero. These terminally ill individual are often forced to endure vital and inexorable pain and suffering. Modern medicine can only reach a certain limit in the attempt to alleviate the pain (Moreland, 2009).
Any individual who may come across and hear or see such an anguish in reality with someone dear to him or her to some extent shares the pain and suffering both emotionally and psychologically which makes one even desperately wishes it to stop.
In the meantime the medication and the doctors are not trivial anymore in stopping the pain and the victim despite all the sufferings, he or she is in a vegetative state and there is nothing she or he can contribute even to the society (Rachels, 2009).
In respect to this, some terminally ill patients may willingly wish to terminate their lives, but since they are in critical stages when even speaking is an issue it becomes very hard or rather impossible to it by themselves.
In this kind of a situation, some close people may be willing to assist the terminally ill patient commit suicide, because by doing so they feel that suffering will finally come to an end. The problem comes when the moral concern of whether doing so would be acceptable in moral terms (Sullivan, 1999).
Irrefutably it is very natural for an individual to wish well for another one and this would drive to assisting one dear to from such unnecessary suffering and pain and anguish. To force a terminally ill patient to go on living until nature takes its course would contradict human dignity since at the same time the patient is being forced to endure constant pain and suffering from the disease and other medical procedures.
The term euthanasia implies “good death” as it is supposed to act as a means through which a terminally ill person whose recovery chances are nonexistent dies with dignity.
All the same, to some people’s view it will be morally wrong to use euthanasia to terminate somebody’s life even in whichever condition (Moreland, 2000).
To these opponents of mercy killing, the problem arises because the approach focuses on happiness versus suffering and puts them at the forefront of life itself. Claims favoring mercy killing seems to mean that unhappy life is not worthy living.
This is a hedonistic point of view to life where it is believed that in the analysis, if the situation produces more of pain, suffering and anguish than it produces joy, serenity and happiness, then it is not good. This is because in such a situation there will be of evil than good being produced as a result (Moreland, 2009).
The truth is that in life everyone suffers and the ability to endure such sufferings is present through focus and thinking positive. It thus follows that, those who come out to assist others or to commit suicide probably do focus much on the suffering side and ignores the inherent capability of the mind to tolerate suffering and come up with implication that goes beyond any feeling that is intrinsically negative (Sidney, 2001).
To die is a reality that every one will eventually experience, and this unfortunately comes sooner for those individuals who contracts terminal diseases.
Even if one in such a condition endures the pain and suffering with an implication that it will be feasible if remains focused and with the meaning of life at the forefront, the bottom line remains that such an individual still remembers that soon he or she will meet death and thus little can he or she decide of the future (Sidney, 2001).
The future becomes determined by the disease. However those who are forced to tolerate suffering and pain should be able to seek their own self-respect without recourse to circumstances with any one claiming to be a beloved one being willing and able to do so too.
No one in the family members or those dear to the victim wishes death to come soon, actually they never wish them to die so as to terminate the suffering claimed but instead they celebrate their lives and always be thoughtful that inherent treasure of life that is incomparably more non trivial than suffering and happiness. This means that life has immeasurable treasure or value which also means that life is sacred (Plato, 2000).
If individuals in the society decide stupidly that the life value should be fully considered with reference to the level of suffering and happiness that people go through, then it as well can be taken to mean that those languishing in absolute poverty should be permitted to die since they endure constant suffering and pain.
As a matter of fact, very few individuals will seem to entertain such a nonsensical claim or notion which will sounds abhorrent to many people.
Conversely, the truth then follows from the fact that, we should ground our society morals on strong and sensible ground, otherwise there will be much immorality creeping in the society deceiving our worldviews (Joanne, 2006).
Societies should be of the claim that life is inherently valuable no matter what extent of pain and suffering one might go through. By this, humanity will possibly be opening up to deeds that recently sound inhumane but might sound usual to pleasant to more than expected individuals in the near future (Joanne, 2006).
The intent for patients being helped to commit suicide and those willingly and actively volunteer to use euthanasia to shorten their suffering and painful and “useless” life is similar to the aforementioned alternatives; it call for intentional life taking of the ill patient.
By its very definition, PAS permits the physician to terminate lives of terminally ill patients using the death booster for those patients willing to die.
The physician is said to be conveyed in intentional killing by embracing this approach to hasten death of a terminally ill person who wills to die (Bowie, Michaels and Solomon, 2006).
To recapitulate, it is noteworthy to say that life is sacred and human beings should always seek to protect ad preserve it which then leads us to the notion that people should be allowed to live until nature does it role.
If human beings become thoughtful of the sanctity of life, then there should always be personal dignity n life regardless of tough circumstances people face.
Therefore, since both seem to mean the same thing, there is no significant difference between killing a patient in reality and using euthanasia or allowing him or her to die because they are both intentional in essence.
Reference List
Ashley, B. and O’Rourke, K. 2001. Health Care Ethics. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.
Bowie, L., Michaels, M, & Solomon, C.2006. Twenty questions: an Introduction to philosophy. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Daniel, C. 1999. Minimalistic Ethics. Hastings Center Report 1 (11), Pp.19-25.
Joanne, L. 2006. By No Extraordinary Means. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Moreland, J. 2009. Review of The End of Life. The Thomist. 53(1), Pp.714-22.
Moreland, J. 2000. The Life and Death Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger Books. 4(2), Pp. 12.
Plato. 2000. The death of Socrates’ in Bowie, GL, Michaels, MW & Solomon, RC, Twenty questions: an introduction to philosophy. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Rachels, J. 2009. The End of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sidney, H., W. 2001. The Physicians Responsibility toward Hopelessly Ill Patients: A Second Look. The New England Journal of Medicine. 3(2), Pp. 844-49.
Sullivan, D. 1999. Active and Passive Euthanasia: An Important Distinction. New York: McGraw- Hill Press.