Recent debates over active euthanasia, which involves killing” a terminally ill patient, have raised the question of whether euthanasia is immoral or a basic human right. Doctors appear to have no doubt.
They made an oath. The definition of euthanasia depends on whether it is active or passive. Active euthanasia is only allowed in Holland and it means that the doctor takes direct measures to put a patient to sleep, whereas passive euthanasia only involves stopping pill consumption or stopping treatment. In England, only passive euthanasia is allowed. Euthanasia touches some of the deepest feelings in human beings.
It is the power over life and death, and responsibilities that no one wishes to take, but have to be taken. This, of course, leads to the ultimatum that it is the patient’s own choice. But can we allow someone to take their own life? Doesn’t this mean that everyone else around the patient has failed, and that more could have been done? From the patient’s point of view, many arguments speak in favor of euthanasia. For one, nobody wants to be a burden.
If a person has had a car accident that paralyzes him from the neck down and dooms him to sit in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, he knows that he will be 100% dependent on those who care for him, his loved ones, forever. It can also be mentioned that the life quality of a terminally ill patient is greatly reduced. Never being able to walk again, talk to your children, go shopping, swimming, playing, or driving, etc. must be terrible for anyone. The whole situation only gets worse if the patient himself can see that his condition is worsening, and only time keeps his thoughts clear.
A third very important point is pain. If people see a deer that has been hit by a car and is in terrible pain, they will kill it out of pity. Why shouldn’t the same be allowed with humans if pain reaches a level where it is unbearable? For these people who do not have the choice of active euthanasia, self-starvation is the only choice. The doctors’ view on euthanasia seems to be overall different. First of all, they have taken an oath always to assist patients in prolonging their lives, and euthanasia completely contradicts this.
Their approach is Where there is life, there is hope.” Even a person who has 20 tubes feeding them and breathing for them still has life, and who knows? Maybe the future will bring a cure. Euthanasia means “good death,” but there can be no conclusion to the question of whether euthanasia should be accepted or not. Psychologists, philosophers, doctors, and everyone else will consider this question for all time. My opinion is that anyone who is terminally ill should have the choice, but there are exceptions to all rules, and for something as serious as this, there shouldn’t be.
