Physician-assisted Death: Advantages and Moral Matters of Right to Die

Euthanasia is a medical process that involves terminating the life of a patient suffering from a chronic disease that when, however, left would succumb to the illness eventually. There are two forms of euthanasia: active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when a patient is allowed to die naturally by withdrawing or withholding medication, water, and diet. According to law and the court justice system, passive euthanasia usually is legal. Such decisions are based on the facts of specific cases. Despite the differences in the definition, both active and passive euthanasia has the same process with the same results.

On the other hand, active euthanasia is also known as physician-assisted death. It is when the life of an ill person is intentionally ended through unnatural means. Usually, the process involves fatal inoculation of prescribed medicine. However, there are additional methods such as depriving the patient of oxygen. The topic about euthanasia has significantly created a controversial issue whenever an individual view it on a legal, religious, and healthcare basis. Such is because the act is an easy method of culminating a patient’s life, and some of the patient’s relations might not agree with the process.

The difference in opinions on euthanizing a patient usually creates conflicts between family members. There are numerous predicaments that emanate from the topic of euthanasia as most legal facilities regard the process as suicide. Patients who opt for the process are concluded to have committed suicide, whereas those who performed it are concluded to have committed murder. Also, the debate has taken center stage in society as different people have distinct views regarding the process. For instance, some people wonder if it is legal to terminate the life of an ill person or a family member that is in anguish. Also, they wonder if the process is different from killing someone. As such, the argument is on whether it is right for someone to decide by themselves to terminate the life of a patient without an individual’s consent.

There are some core ethical and legal factors that surround the process of euthanasia. As such, the permissible subject surrounding euthanasia is advanced commands and leaving wills with other individuals. Occasionally with these incentives, the language applied contributes to misunderstanding, thus compelling doctors to make their clarification. Also, a legal issue is in the case study of euthanasia as the argument is on why a parent would choose to end the life of a child when the child would have fought the illness much longer. Parents and guardians have the freedom to make decisions concerning their children's health care. However, such should not mean that clinicians and parents should ignore the children from deliberations and making resolutions concerning their healthcare and livelihood. In the state of Indiana, a law was passed that allowed persons with terminal illnesses to meet specific qualifications before making a request to a medical professional for medication that the person may self-inscribe to end a patient’s life. The law also postulates the specific qualifications a clinician must have to recommend the treatment to an individual.

In addition, it excludes an insurer from repudiating compensation of benefits under a life protection plan based on a suicide section in the life indemnification plan. As a result, compensations must be paid to the insured’s family by the insurer provided the demise of the indemnified was as a result of medicinal assistance in dying. However, the law institutes a Level 1 felony if an individual: intentionally or knowingly of exercises unjustifiable influence on an individual to request for a prescription to terminate the life of an individual or terminate a request for a prescription to end the life of a patient. Secondly, the law also establishes Level 1 felony an individual without the authorization of the patient, knowingly forges, conceals, destroys, or alters a request for a prescription to cause a patient’s death.

The moral matters that surround euthanasia are the people who decide on whether an individual ought to undergo the process or not, whether it is principled or unprincipled. Also, the ethical issues question the circumstances in which the process is justifiable and whether the process is passive or active or involuntary or voluntary. As such, it is vital to employ the skills of extremely trained professionals, infirmary beds, equipment, and prescriptions for the patients who wish to live than the ones who do not. Despite all these factors, only the ill individual understands how they feel, how the responsive and physical pain of sickness, and extended passing influences the quality of their life.

There are several controversial cases surrounding the process of euthanasia. For instance, a nine-year-old who was established with cystic fibrosis and their blood relatives concurred for them to have active euthanasia. The parents consented for the process as they did not want to further the treatment because a medical professional assumed that it would be healthier for the child. Form the case study, begs both ethical and legal questions as to why a clinician would be advocating for the death of a child when they may perhaps have battled off the illness much longer. As a result of the recommendation from the clinician, the child’s parents were also affected. The parents suffered traumatic grief as they watched their child pass. On most occasions, the patient’s family members always tend to blame themselves for not being able to reverse the process once they realize that their relationship would have lived a little bit longer if the parents had not consented to the process.

However, irrespective of all the controversies around the process, some countries have advocated for the legalization of euthanasia. However, the legalization of the medical process has faced a myriad of distinctive impacts which are positive and negative. The legalization of euthanasia has been a topic of debate since the start of modern medicine. The legalization of euthanasia will allow the suffering patients to get their final wish finally. I believe in the legalization of euthanasia to help those who are suffering and help them pass on. As such, I support this process because I believe every individual has the freedom to do whatever they want with their body. The legalization of euthanasia, however, comes with its positive and negative impacts. The legalization of the process would lead to numerous deaths of individuals facing depression and those who are unwillingly euthanized. According to research carried out, about 1 out of 10 of the cancer deaths is caused by euthanasia — such shows how practitioners will quickly give up and take advantage of a patient’s depression. If doctors can get away with the unethical practices, they may come up with the idea of euthanizing individuals as a way of escaping the burden of solving the patients’ problems. Families may also be willing to give up as the cost of hospital bills become a factor. Taking care of a sick relation can prove to become a financial burden to the families thus they can opt for euthanasia.

Additionally, the less educated and the poor minorities are the most vulnerable ones if the process is legalized. The loss of a loved one through euthanasia will not show that the doctors are the ones to blame. Therefore, doctors can go ahead and perform the euthanasia process without the consent of the patient’s family. Such is attributed to the inability to pay for hospital funds and also the ignorance of the medical practitioners who become lazy in handling a large number of patients. As a result, the practitioners usually end up administering the medication on the patients but later pin it on natural death. The process also denies some members of the family the opportunity to have their last words with the patient as some of the family members are not usually present throughout the process. Also, religious concerns have been a significant setback in the legalization of euthanasia. Many religious individuals especially Christians have confidence in life as a reward and taking it away is an authority that only has its place with God. The United States Catholic Bishops have actively opposed euthanasia thus making it an uphill task for the country to legally adopt the process. Such is attributed to the significant role religion plays in the decision-making process of the country.

On the other hand, the legalization of euthanasia also has its advantages in the long run. The process puts an end to an individual’s suffering. In a 1996 United States Court case concerning the process of euthanasia, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the right of an emotionally stable patient encountering an incurable disease to select a suitable and honorable passing, rather than feel an agonizing pain in their final days was regarded as legal in the perception of methodical freedom. As such, the permission to let patients end their anguish willingly is not only vindicated but also necessary in safeguarding the right to individual and physical independence. Also, individuals in the late stages of their incurable illnesses frequently end up incapacitated. They are usually dependent on relatives and nurses for basic tasks such as showering, visiting the toilet, and bathing. Such can be humiliating to the patients. Therefore, they tend to choose to be given a dignified death through the euthanasia process. Giving a dying person the chance to make decisions regarding what time and how they want to perish allows them to take control of their existence. In addition, euthanasia also helps eliminate the fear of financial burden. Inadequate funding for pain management and mollifying care, and the administration’s resilience in nurturing institutions have contributed to despair in old age. As a result, the persons prefer to settle for euthanasia than spend large amounts of money in nursing homes, yet they have a limited to life.

Many people who are dying always want to help others live as themselves they have a limited life. They always do not want other people to suffer and go through the same suffering in life as they did. The incurable disease can run ramped and, in most cases, will cause destruction of the body as well as organ failure. Euthanized patients can donate their organs to other patients to save their lives. As such, if euthanasia is still prohibited, the organs can be damaged and infected with disease thus no one can inherit them. In addition, no one will be saved because the state laws, society, and religion did not allow the person who wanted to be euthanized to die peacefully. Vital organs from the euthanized patients can be preserved and given to patients who can be saved. Moreover, the needs of the living should be prioritized more than those who are conclusive about their fate and have decided to die.

Some factors limit the legalization of euthanasia. Some of these factors are usually influenced by various aspects of a country. There are some areas in that the government should not be involved or influence on how people do things. Government and insurance companies should not get involved in any way at end-of-life decisions. Conversely, insurance companies may limit the doctors’ capability to cure a dying patient as they prohibit the doctor from conducting some procedures that may save the life of the patient. Instead, the insurance companies may end up paying the corrupt medical professionals and bribing them to perform euthanasia on a patient so that the company can save money. The insurance companies instill a feeling of sickness in most people while euthanizing others as the public thinks they are saving the patients.

Doctors have the power to save lives that would not be possible in previous years. The ability of medical practitioners has significantly increased with the increase in technological advancements. Doctors are not perfect and are sometimes influenced to become unethical and unjust. As such, a wrong diagnosis might lead to the assisted suicide of a savable individual. Doctors are trusted by the patients as well as the patients’ relations. As such, if the doctor concludes that there is no hope, the patient’s family will concur and equally give up. The shortage of medical staff and the doctors have to focus so much time on the patients that are more vulnerable, and the doctor may suggest active euthanasia. In some cases, doctors bring their judgment and business into decision making thus making them unethical. The use of euthanasia also is against the doctors’ sworn oath which is to protect the patients and practice medicine ethically. Therefore, doctors should not be the only party involved in the decision of ending the life of a patient. A doctor’s role should not be to take a person’s life, and they should not be allowed to kill patients at their own free will.

In conclusion, euthanasia should be legalized to free patients from the agonies that their illnesses are causing them. The process will save numerous lives and grant the person on the verge of death their last wish. Patients want to be set free of the body that is pulling them back and constraining them. Therefore, allowing them to be euthanized will grant them freedom from their agony. Just like every other argument, euthanasia has its challenges, but the positive impacts outweigh the negative impacts. As such, people with chronic illnesses should be granted free will to make this decision if the worst comes to worst. However, it should not be the first solution to the problem, and it should be done with much dignity. Euthanasia must be the last option if applied at all, and only patients who have asked for it or family members to a patient who is in a comma have agreed to it.