A Moral Interpretation of Euthanasia and Murder

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 is known in other terms as assisted suicide it swallows the same principles as murder. It commonly only carried out on an individual with an incurable condition, on the other hand, 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 the patients who terminally ill and enduring a lot of pain be helped to end their lives, in case the patient desires so? Besides who has the freedom to repudiate 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.

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; distress of passing away and desire to stay life constantly are, part of the human nature. At times, however, the medical field take advantage of in this phase of humanity. Whereas it is correct that one objective of medicine is to elongate life, the additional aim is to alleviate the pain and misery(Engdahl)

Christians who usually oppose this act believe Human was created in the likeness and image of God hence are of key-value or worth, beyond any prices. Nearly all the Christian, pro-life opinions are based on the 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 the human associations. Carrying out euthanasia procedure on any human is the failure to notice 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 are centers on the dualistic anthropology as well as the wrong moral assumptions fundamental of the justification of euthanasia, called, consequentialism(Engdahl)

The basic assertion of advocates of the beliefs of this act is that the 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 the personal life since without the bodily life individual can’t be a determinedly experiencing matter. This means that the bodily life of a human is dissimilar from the personal life. Therefore, the human body and their 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 like is not worth it to stay alive an individual is not in position to make decisions that the bodily life is burdensome or useless, and in situations 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 sick and the dying. The self-respect of sick persons can’t be wiped out by disease and pain. Such measures are not individual judgments; they touch the society as a whole. A dignified death is the realization that human is similarly spiritual beings. People have to encourage the technique of taking care of the dying patients whereas mercy is prolonged to them without persuading death(Green 14-18)

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 lethal injection to 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 nice(and succeeds in doing so) against individual who has plans to kill his nice, sees her fall comatose and drown then watches her pass away instead of saving her. Considering at both circumstances, one couldn’t, with a vivid conscious, claim that the person who observed the girl drown was ethically right matched to the person who carried out the act. Yes, the human being is given birth to and die. It some understandable that in certain cases, the doctors are left with no choices. In situations cases, patients who are terminally ill have repeatedly been taken care of in hospital with no transformation, bad or good, but the moral instinctive still claims that it is wrong to end lives these individuals whether by active or passive euthanasia(Engdahl)

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 hold the opinion that an active euthanasia procedure is not ethically eviler than the removal or suppression of the medical therapy, and inaccurately defined this procedure as the“passive euthanasia.” This kind of opinions are disputed by euthanasia opponents who advance the claim of human’s sanctity of life and hence euthanasia is equivalent to murder case, 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 the modern medicine. (Materstvedt et al. 102-106)

For people who take a stand against the assisted suicide. Though the options and freedom of patients who are terminally ill may be restricted, they are however not gone. The dying individuals able to make such choices (assisted suicide) is likewise can make less great open choices about living his/her disorder. If an individual is logical and conscious enough to choose whether they would prepare to get lethal injection, why don’t use the similar logic to choose whether like to go for treatment?

Fundamental to the belief against the euthanasia is the general public understanding of the sanctity of life, which has both religious and secular basis. The basic philosophy is that the human life ought to be valued and well-looked-after. The Christian opinion perceives life as God’s gift, hence should not be ended u8nder 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 the natural death(The Board of Social Responsibility of The Church of Scotland 1)

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