The Ethical Debate on Euthanasia: Arguments for and Against

Euthanasia, the practice of ending the life of a suffering patient through the use of barbiturate or paralytic injections, remains a highly controversial medical procedure. While it is legal in the majority of European Union countries, Colombia, and several American states, the countries where euthanasia is permitted are still in the minority. This essay will delve into the ethical arguments both for and against euthanasia.

Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia

One of the key arguments in favor of euthanasia is that it allows individuals suffering from incurable diseases to die with dignity, free from unbearable pain. Unlike animals, who can be euthanized by veterinarians when they cannot be cured, human beings are often left to endure immense suffering that cannot be alleviated by painkillers. Euthanasia offers a peaceful death, allowing patients to be surrounded by their loved ones during their final moments. From a humane perspective, euthanasia provides an escape from the suffering that would otherwise push patients towards considering suicide.

Furthermore, the concept of euthanasia emphasizes the importance of patient autonomy. Individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives, such as whether to receive a coronavirus vaccine or follow prescribed medications and treatments. In these situations, people are allowed to manage their own health independently. However, when it comes to the choice of when and how to end their lives, this autonomy is often stripped away, forcing them to suffer until death. This discrepancy raises a contradiction, as individuals are allowed to choose suicide, which is not unlawful, but are denied the choice of euthanasia, which involves a similar decision to end one's life.

Arguments Against Euthanasia

On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia argue that this medical procedure devalues human life. Parmar et al. (2016) conducted a study revealing that opponents believe individuals should be kept alive regardless of age, disease, disabilities, or personal preferences. Interestingly, these opponents use the same argument of mercy killings for animals in support of euthanasia. They equate the lives of conscious human beings with those of pets, reducing the value of human life. Additionally, opponents argue that legalizing euthanasia could lead to a decrease in the quality of care provided to terminally ill patients, as it is often cheaper to end a person's life rather than provide proper palliative care. There is also concern that some medical practitioners may exploit euthanasia to manipulate patients and their families.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate surrounding euthanasia remains unresolved due to the equally persuasive arguments for and against it. However, the fact that most countries prohibit mercy killing of individuals indicates that society as a whole is not yet ready to accept euthanasia. Nevertheless, the ban on euthanasia has given rise to a phenomenon known as "suicide tourism" in countries where euthanasia is legal. This suggests that the discussions on euthanasia continue to be relevant, as the arguments against it often come from individuals who are not personally experiencing the unbearable physical pain that can only be relieved through death.

Reference:

1. Parmar, P., Rathod, S., & Parikh, A. (2016). Perceptions of patients towards euthanasia–A medico-legal perspective. International Association of Infant Massage, 20(12), 21-30.