This is always a controversial issue because of the moral and ethical components that are involved. This paper will discuss the arguments against euthanasia. Discussion Euthanasia is clearly against the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors have to fulfil. This oath basically states that doctors must never be involved in the killing of people because after all, they have been trained to ensure that people are able to recover from their diseases and injuries.
Doctors are the ones whom people entrust their lives whenever there is something wrong with their health. Thus, it is the responsibility of the doctors to always do the best they can to help people live and enjoy their lives Cavan If their patients die under their supervision, the doctors can accept this for as long as they know and can prove that they really did their best and exhausted all possibilities to ensure the survival of the patients.
There are just certain instances where the disease or the injury of the patients has become so serious that it is already difficult to treat and make the patients recover. In these cases, it is unfair to blame the doctors for the death of the patients. The Hippocratic Oath helps the doctors to realize how important their responsibilities are to the people in terms of their health. This oath also provides an assurance to the people that they can trust their doctors and be assured that they will do whatever is necessary to help them deal with their health problems.
If euthanasia becomes legalized, then the effectiveness of the Hippocratic Oath will be negated and the doctors can have the option of immediately resorting to euthanasia especially in difficult cases instead of trying their best until the very end. Another argument against euthanasia is that it is essentially homicide because the doctors will kill the patient even if it has been approved by the patient himself or the family of the patient.
The medical experience has taught that the incurable man may ask for his end under the state of unbearable suffering, but when his pains shrink or stop, life reappears and the appeal is now for its preservation and not for its ending. In addition, the intolerable pressure of the relatives generates an amount of questions and suspicions, especially when financial and hereditary interests coexist. To continue with the doctors position on the subject, we must first underline that the Hippocratic oath that is made from the majority of the doctors around the world, and has lead and still leads their consciences for centuries, is outright, and starkly prohibitive to any act or attempt of euthanasia.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone, if asked for, nor will I make suggestion to this effect Drakopoulos, p. According to an American doctor Leon R. Undebatably, there are also real and genuine signs of pity and compassion for our weak companion, parent, or child. And maybe most of us have been witnesses of such situations where the pen is unable to describe the deep emotions of dedication, affection, pain, and the appeal for relief in the eyes of both sides.
And in the middle, the doctor who is standing incapable to stop the decay, is hovering above the hesitations of his heart and his conscience. In these difficult situations, the experience of the previous generations of the medicine teaches that the doctor on the one hand must use up all his scientific effort for the relief from the pain, and on the other hand should stand by the patient as the man who tenders the hope and not as his executioner who leads to death.
On the contrary, there are cases where doctors do not respect their Oath and put into practice euthanasia to people for their own benefit or as they say for scientific gain. Doctor Death , Jack Kevorkian, is a grand example.
The newspaper New Republic Betzhold M. Kevorkian has said that euthanasia is just the first step; what he finds the most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments.
For the legal matter, the third base of ethics of euthanasia, we can concentrate on the issue of the legalization. According to a Greek professor of medicine Avramedes, p. About this issue, R. Questions like what are the risks that people will ask to be killed after a misdiagnosis? Our fundamental law has set up some conditions in order to define the homicide with consent like the verification that the disease is incurable, the request of the patient for euthanasia is made after serious thought, and that the perpetrator should be aware of the disease and to act with ruth for the patient.
It may be premature to move to that direction now. There is a real danger in forging ahead with legislation without having considered euthanasia in all its breadth and depth. Does it have its limits? Have we sufficiently thought through the probable and possible consequences, good and bad, of both allowing and disallowing these measures?
Have all reasonable alternatives been tried? Could it be that legalized euthanasia will leave unresolved the root problems associated with care of the terminally ill and dying, and deal with only the symptoms? How would a policy of legalized euthanasia be reconciled with basic moral convictions as well as with the beliefs of most religious traditions?
Many such considerations deserve to be thought through before we try to settle the issue through legislation. The state and the society ought to offer compassion and sympathy to the dying man and not death. Because, nothing and nobody can enable the murder of an innocent man, whose life does not belong to anybody not even to him Avramedes, p.
The doctor everyday, poises and counts the heavy moments of the passage from life to death, without any power to hamper this line knowing that the intimate fibers that link life with the other side are in the hands of someone Else.
The One that gave them. So, the doctor knows that he should never presume that an illness is incurable, considering the probability of a mistake, a surprise, a miracle.
On the other hand, we perceive the revulsion of the people who support the act of euthanasia when the end concerns themselves. It is different to think for euthanasia cold-bloodedly than when you suffer. Time and Life count differently then. Unappreciated feelings come back, rise, and lighten.
The whole life is being transvalued, the spirit is getting smoother, and the rivals turn down. Nobody intimates the soul s sensitive tosses and gambols a little while before the Final Exit.
Euthanasia is not that different from murder because they both involve killing a person. The only difference is that in euthanasia, there is mercy and consent involved while in murder there is none Tulloch If murder is prohibited by law because people take matters into their own hands and kill others, then euthanasia should also be banned because doctors take matters into their own hands and kill their patients even if there is consent from the patients and their families or relatives.
Lastly, the continued improvements and innovations in the field of medicine and health care make euthanasia illogical to be implemented as an option. The reason why medical experts continue to work hard to come up with improved medical technologies, medicines and treatment methods is that they want to make sure that the sick people are able to recover faster and healthy people become even healthier.
All of these efforts are being done to make the society become more productive due to the presence of healthy and strong people McDougall Thus, doctors will not have an excuse for not doing their best for their patients as they already have access to the best medical technologies, medicines and treatment methods that will prevent them from having to resort to euthanasia as the only option.
There is no doubt that euthanasia needs to be banned as based on the three arguments discussed above, it does not deserve a place in human society. Doctors must never give up on their patients no matter how hopeless the situation might be. They must exhaust all options to give their patients a fighting chance to survive and recover. The Debate Over the Right to Die.
Against Euthanasia essaysLiterally, euthanasia means "good death" but the controversy surrounding it is just the opposite. In active euthanasia the immediate cause of death is not the patients disease but something that is done to .
Non voluntary passive euthanasia. General Arguments: Against euthanasia: 1-One should not interfere in the doings of God: As God has a purpose to everything. Counter point: A person in favor of it usually says how one can be sure of what god wants or what god has in His mind. God has given us intellect to make one's life as better as possible.
Another argument against euthanasia, this time a practical one, is that euthanasia is not needed when proper palliative care is available. Terminally ill patients are given drugs and other types of support to help relieve the physical pain and mental effects of . Essay on A Christian's Arguments For or Against Euthanasia Words | 5 Pages Euthanasia is the act of bringing about the easy and gentle death, usually someone who is terminally ill or in great pain, which is why some recognise euthanasia as 'mercy killing'.
Against Euthanasia Essay Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. Another argument against euthanasia is that it is essentially homicide because the doctors will kill the patient even if it has been approved by the patient himself or the family of the patient. Euthanasia is not that different from murder because they both involve killing a .