WHAT’S EUTHANASIA? WOULD YOU EMBRACE LEGALISATION OF THIS PRACTICE IN YOUR COUNTRY?
Euthanasia, also called ‘mercy killing’ is the act of painlessly ending a patient’s life to limit further suffering. The patient in question might be suffering from an painful or an incurable disease or an incapacitating physical disorders. Euthanasia is not limited to killing the patient,
it can also be done by allowing the patient to die for example by withholding treatment or by withdrawing life any artificial life-supporting measures. Euthanasia uses the idea that instead of letting the patient through slow, painful and undignified death, it gives a patient a relatively ‘good’ dignified death.
In some countries some types of euthanasia are legal but there are many controversies and condemnations against it. Most people take it as a disrespect to preservation of life. Mostly among traditional systems, they are against it because it goes against the law against murder in the ten commandments. However, euthanasia in legal systems might be referred to as suicide-if the patient does it him/herself or murder -if another person does it.
There are various types of euthanasia mainly deferring from who does it, why and what’s done and under what conditions.
•Active euthanasia -this involves use of active measures to kill a patient. For example ijecting a lethal dose to a patient. This is called ‘aggressive ‘ method which more of does killing than letting die.
•Passive euthanasia-This is administered by withholding artificial means of supporting life or withdrawing life support machine. This does more of letting die than killing.
•Voluntary-is done with the patient’s consent. Could be active or passive voluntary euthanasia.
•Involuntary- Done without the patient’s consent, for example in comatose patient. The patient’s wishes are uknown therefore is illegal in most legal systems.
•Self administered- The patient administers the means of death.
•Assisted -the patient administers the means of death wirh the assistance of another person. For example, physician assisted euthanasia whereby the physician helps the patient die by active or voluntary means.
There are many controversies and conflicts surrounding euthanasia e. g the terms killing vs letting die. According to common sense morality people argue that letting die is not as bad as killing. If a person is involved in an accident because no one called an ambulance, that means letting them die because something could’ve been done to save the person's life. Letting a person die mostly goes with the notion that they have no right to demand us to prevent their deaths. Killing is mostly condemned because it considered as murder.
The distinction between killing and letting die in health care systems is controversial because critics change and there is no proper moral basis of distinction. They argue that bothe killing an letting die leads to a common end , death. Others argue that the nature of killing is different from that of letting die in ways that makes it morally unacceptable.
Ordinary vs extraordinary treatment -Some ethicists argue that letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or care is acceptable but withholding ordinary care or treatment is not. This view is controversial since some think that distinction between the two is artificial, contrived, vague and constantly changing as technology progresses.
Intended vs anticipated death-If death is intended, it is morally wrong but if death is anticipated it might be morally acceptable. This reasoning is based on double effect moral principle.
Therefore, in some legal systems where euthanasia is legal, they rely om the fact that life is good and that existing life should be preserved as a matter of course, unless some overriding supersedes the innate value of an ongoing life.
THANK YOU FOR READING THE ARTICLE. DON’T FORGET TO LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS.
You must be logged in to post a comment.