A Moral Interpretation of Euthanasia and Murder

The Concept of Euthanasia

The euthanasia means to an end a seriously ill individual’s life to save him/her from the pain and suffering the disease is triggering. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, follows similar principles as murder. It is commonly only carried out on an individual with an incurable condition; however, there are other occasions when it can be conducted. In numerous nations, such as the United Kingdom, it is unlawful to help anybody in ending their lives. Should patients who are terminally ill and enduring a lot of pain be helped to end their lives if the patient desires so? Besides, who has the freedom to deny any patient who is undergoing a lot of pain a less agonizing death? These questions generate a massive amount of argument, and they have been intensely deliberated. Individuals in favor of the euthanasia procedure claim the patient’s will should be respected, while those against maintain that the procedure could be abused, leading to distressing situations.

A Moral Interpretation of Euthanasia and Murder

Human beings are mortal, and their lifecycle is fixed. Though we are temporal, human beings try to hold onto their lives as much as possible; the distress of passing away and desire to stay alive constantly are part of human nature. At times, however, the medical field takes advantage of this phase of humanity. While it is true that one objective of medicine is to prolong life, another aim is to alleviate pain and misery (Engdahl, 2003). Christians who usually oppose this act believe humans were created in the likeness and image of God and hence are of key value or worth, beyond any price. Nearly all Christian, pro-life opinions are based on personal dignity. The act of euthanasia can have moral logic if it is imaginable to say, honorably, that this self-worth had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is a central mistake of all wickedness in human associations. Carrying out a euthanasia procedure on any human is the failure to recognize the basic value or self-worth of the individual. The ruling that whatever has value, fundamentally, by some means doesn’t have value, is both morally and logically wrong. The morals of the act of euthanasia center on dualistic anthropology as well as the wrong moral assumptions fundamental to the justification of euthanasia, called consequentialism (Engdahl, 2003).

Human Worth and Decision-Making

The basic assertion of advocates of the beliefs of this act is that human beings are deliberately feeling subjects whose self-worth entails their capacity to make decisions and to define their fate. Bodily natural life is a form of personal life since without bodily life an individual can’t be a determinedly experiencing matter. This means that the bodily life of a human is dissimilar from personal life. Therefore, the human body and its bodily lifespan are contributory goods, possessions for that particular person, not properties of the individual. It hence follows that there may exist such a belief that it is not worth it to stay alive when an individual is not in a position to make decisions, that the bodily life is burdensome or useless, and in situations where it becomes useless, the individual, i.e. consciously feeling matter, has the freedom to free themselves of this inoperable burden. Currently, a major issue in combating assisted suicide and euthanasia is good care for the sick and dying. The self-respect of sick persons can’t be wiped out by disease and pain. Such measures are not individual judgments; they touch society as a whole. A dignified death is the realization that humans are similarly spiritual beings. People have to encourage the technique of taking care of dying patients whereas mercy is prolonged to them without persuading death (Green, 2003).

Perspectives on Euthanasia

Some advocates offer views which are not fully contrasting the act of euthanasia. They claim that in case an individual is in life-threatening pain and suffering, and in case the pain will deteriorate, the treatment and medicine should be detached, and a lethal injection should be offered since it is humane. There are numerous opinions about the dissimilarities between killing somebody and allowing them to die. Some supporters of this act believe that there is no ethical dissimilarity between these two opinions. A good example in this situation is a gentleman who strategized to murder his niece (and succeeds in doing so) against an individual who has plans to kill his niece, sees her fall comatose and drown, then watches her pass away instead of saving her. Considering both circumstances, one couldn’t, with a vivid conscience, claim that the person who observed the girl drown was ethically right compared to the person who carried out the act. Yes, human beings are born and die. It is understandable that in certain cases, doctors are left with no choices. In such cases, patients who are terminally ill have repeatedly been taken care of in hospitals with no transformation, bad or good, but the moral instinct still claims that it is wrong to end the lives of these individuals whether by active or passive euthanasia (Engdahl, 2003).

The Sanctity of Life

Advocates of this act argue that individuals have the freedom to make their judgments concerning death and euthanasia is proposed to lessen suffering and pain, hence being attributed the phrase “mercy killing,” which has been commonly used. They tend to hold the opinion that an active euthanasia procedure is not ethically more evil than the removal or suppression of medical therapy, and inaccurately define this procedure as “passive euthanasia.” This kind of opinion is disputed by euthanasia opponents who advance the claim of human sanctity of life and hence euthanasia is equivalent to murder and furthermore, abuses human rights and autonomy. Additionally, it is claimed that good comforting care can give relief from pain to hospitalized patients and contrasting euthanasia, ought to be the solution in modern medicine (Materstvedt et al., 2003).

Opposition to Assisted Suicide

For people who take a stand against assisted suicide, though the options and freedom of patients who are terminally ill may be restricted, they are however not gone. Dying individuals able to make such choices (assisted suicide) are likewise able to make less great open choices about living with their disorder. If an individual is logical and conscious enough to choose whether they would prepare to get a lethal injection, why don’t they use the same logic to choose whether they would like to go for treatment? Fundamental to the belief against euthanasia is the general public understanding of the sanctity of life, which has both religious and secular bases. The basic philosophy is that human life ought to be valued and well-looked-after. The Christian opinion perceives life as God’s gift, hence should not be ended under any circumstances. Likewise, Islamic faith maintains that “life is the only privilege of God Who gives and takes life.” The suppression or taking away of the patient's treatment is allowable when the situation is ineffective, which can be understood as permitting natural death (The Board of Social Responsibility of The Church of Scotland, 1995).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the human moral interpretation is that both assisted suicide and murder are wrong. As human beings, we ought to value and preserve the life of every individual; it is not morally upright to choose to end someone else's life, even if the said individual is experiencing pain. Human life is priceless, and there should not be claims of financial burden when it comes to treating the ill, and the decision to end any life will be equal to murder.

References

• Engdahl, S. (2003). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press.
• Green, R. (2003). The Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Materstvedt, L. J., et al. (2003). "Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A view from an EAPC Ethics Task Force." Palliative Medicine, 17(2), 97-101.
• The Board of Social Responsibility of The Church of Scotland. (1995). Living Wills and Advance Directives. Church of Scotland.