There are certain times when we feel that there is nothing more we can do to salvage the life of a dying person yet that person is so much inflicted in paint and suffering that the urge to do something kills us from inside. Euthanasia in the field of nursing and medicine is the act of mercy killing of the people who are in much pain and we think that they would be better off dead than struggling for their lives (Manning, 1998). So we take the initiative to terminate their lives with or without their approval. Is euthanasia really justified? Let’s find out the cons of euthanasia.
Euthanasia is when a sick person decides to end his or her life voluntarily. Sometimes they gain assistance from the physicians dealing with their case or the immediate family members who encourages them to go ahead and terminate their lives. These people often have terminal illnesses that persuade them that their lives are not worth living and therefore call for immediate life termination through drugs and other mechanisms such denying medicine to the sick. The question now is why is it that capital punishment is legal in most countries and yet euthanasia is not legal?
Allowing room for euthanasia will with no doubt reduce the commitments of the nurses and doctors in saving lives. This will reduce their input in the struggle to save one’s life. The doctors and nurses will be giving up on patients so soon even before trying as hard just because they want to take a secondary measure of euthanasia. As much as there is a majority of people who are for euthanasia inNetherlands, the debate is still far from over especially when it comes deciding who should conduct the operations and how these operations should be controlled (Sunny, Bloyd, 1995).
We are afraid of the slippery slope. As soon as the voluntary euthanasia law is enacted, most professionals’ doctors and nurses will not hesitate to incorporate involuntary euthanasia too. This is to say that if we slightly alter the laws to accommodate voluntary euthanasia, we may not be in a position to control these legislations as supposed to be. Doctors and nurses may soon start terminating the lives of people without even seeking for their assent. It makes such a noticeable difference in killing a person who has asked for it than just killing someone without their knowledge (Keown, 2005).
In case euthanasia is to be allowed, patients may misuse the act into terminating their lives. For instance, some patients may be depressed therefore believing that there is much satisfaction in dying than living. Or to some extent, a patient may be seriously ill and unable to make sound decision as a result of pain and therefore calling for mercy killing when in real sense they would have made it. This is because, people in pain have mental disorders hence their judgments can be distorted (Balch, 1985).
Number one fundamental human right is right to life, therefore constitutionally, morally, legally and religiously euthanasia will be against the importance and right of life that with ought to uphold with utmost respect. So killing of the ill will be denying them their right of life. It is ironical that at the same time we are fighting for recognitions of human rights if we cannot keep the basic right to life important.
Sometimes human activities are profit driven. It would be hard to separate between assisted killing and the urge to generate profit. Many a times Health maintenance organizations have adamantly disqualified doctors’ decisions to try and treat the patient a factor that have seen many deaths hastened. The general cost of purchasing euthanasia injection is about 50% which makes it far much cheaper compared to a long term treatment that would otherwise be costly on our health care systems. Therefore, the drive to save little we have can and have driven many to shut down other people’s lives (Sulmasy et al., 1998).
Introducing euthanasia will definitely reduce the applications and effectiveness of palliative care (palliative care is caring for the dying people physically, emotionally and spiritually. This also includes compassion and family support). This is because, the health centers will be going for the cost effective choice in when it comes to dealing with the dying people. Already as it is, most decision makers are split apart in deciding between the overwhelmed demands for limited available resources. Therefore, legalizing euthanasia will only make it easier for them to make such decisions.
If allowed, euthanasia will be abused. The sick and vulnerable will be put under pressure to terminate their lives. This is because; it will be hard to stop the health care takers and the relatives of the sick from persuading the sick to opt for euthanasia when maybe they would have done better without it. If they refuse to end their lives, they would be segregated and abandoned by unscrupulous families, friends and lovers. In such scenarios of total abandonment and relative pressures, the sick could request for life termination when all they needed was moral and family support (Detroit Free Press, 1997; Page, 1999; Montemayor, 1999; Ann Arbor News, 1997).
People opt for mercy killing because of poor health care systems, some lack in-home supports yet still these people are afraid of seeking nursing homes. The governments-if it wants to deal with the mercy killing issue, it should provide for people sufficient and long term community and home based care services to reduce the demands for euthanasia. The insufficiency and unavailability of such services greatly contribute to the urge of euthanasia (Coleman, 2002).
Those in support of euthanasia ague that the mercy killing offer people with choice to make decisions on how and where they want to die but contrary tom the opinions, the it is lack of choices that make people call for mercy killing. These people’s choices should be community based services and home care systems. Herbert Hendin noted that inNetherlands, euthanasia has reduced pressure for palliative care and on the other hand decreasing pressure for it (Hendin, 1996).
Viewed from traditional angle, euthanasia goes against basic moral principles that clearly states to us that killing is forbidden. From biblical perspectives, euthanasia is categorized under murder of first degree and also goes against the commandments of the bible that says “thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20: 13-14). Viewing from a secular dimension, the laws are there to uphold the sanctity of life, therefore allowing for euthanasia will be going against all forms of laws. That is to say, euthanasia goes contrary to religious norms, both legal and traditional laws and also questions the professional standards and ethics in medical institutions.
Those pro-euthanasia claim that they would be relieving the ill off there disability and pain problems but in reality, these people chose assisted killing because of indignity they feel by their inability to correspond their bodies to simple tasks by themselves. Some even site the fact that they cannot stand the thought of their mothers, husbands, wives wiping there behinds just because they cannot simply move (Leiby, 1996). In the survey conducted by physicians inNetherlands, patients attributed their reasons to seek assisted killing to lack of dignity (Birchard, 1999).
Poor diagnosis especially the underlying depression on the side of the patients may cause the patients to make a quick call for euthanasia. Managing Director of the Medical Director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Dr. Herbert Hendin confessed that anxiety and depressions are in most cases the cause for patients to call for quick death. Therefore, if poorly diagnosed, we might find ourselves killing people who were not internally prepared for death hence catching the patient in a condition of unknown terror (Hendin, 1996).
According to the Laws established in Oregon (Oregon Death with Dignity Act), a physician acting of grounds of good faith to perform mercy killing action is not to be penalized by the state laws. There is a thin line in differentiating the act of good faith and professional negligence. Diane Coleman asks whether the society is really prepared to deal with this negligence and cover up for mistakes under the pretext of good faith killing. This is because such laws shield health care providers from facing trial for mistakes they do (Coleman, 2002).
In conclusion therefore, euthanasia seems like a perfect idea to have around, but when keenly analyzed and inspected on a closer proximity, legalizing assisted killing will be more harm than good to our society. The proponents of euthanasia only view this matter superficially on the choices an individual has on his/her life but it would be better if they move closer and look deeper into it. We should stop attaching our personal wishes to the general views. What we want for ourselves is far much different from what our neighbors would want. Euthanasia if implemented will have unintended dire consequences on humanity.
When writing on such a topic, comprehensive research is key to obtain the facts right. At mystudenthelp, we can help you achieve the best grade on the subject. Get an original custom written essay from scratch by our professional writers at discounted rates.
