Critical Analysis of Euthanasia

THESIS: The incentives to legalize euthanasia are fairly attractive however euthanasia should not be approved because it poses a universal threat to human life.
Arguments for euthanasia.
It is part of the freedom of expression for individuals and groups.
Right to live also includes right to die.
Rules against killing would regulate the use of euthanasia.
The best decision would be the one which yields the best results (utilitarianism).
Arguments against euthanasia
Religious beliefs forbade the killing of people.
Euthanasia diminishes human dignity.
Legalization becomes a gateway for criminal activities
Alternative use of palliative care
Conclusion
Euthanasia should not be approved because it places the lives of human beings at risk.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The research poses a query on whether euthanasia, the deliberate termination of the life of a critically ill patient, is ethical. Several reasons arise against and in support of the procedure. The body of the paper consists of evidence about merits and demerits of legalization. Proposers argue that it is a constitutional right to choose whether to live or die under certain medical conditions. This section continues to suggest that regulation of euthanasia is possible and would yield better results for patients. In contrast, religious individuals view the matter as murder and state that it is sinful. More so, the act devalues human life and creates a leeway for criminal activities in future. An alternative revolving on palliative care is proposed to relieve pain for patients.

Consequently, euthanasia is revoked as a medical procedure which poses a danger to the human race because people are capable of using it for financial and political purposes.

Critical Analysis of Euthanasia
Medical dilemmas surrounding life and death evolved over the years to include ethical perspectives of certain procedures. Euthanasia happens to be an emerging topic of interest for modern academics. Termination of life for a patient with immense physical pain can be analyzed in two ways. The practice favors the notion of personal freedom because the patient chooses death over agony. Critics argue that it acts as a gateway for criminal activities fashioned as inevitable medical processes. The idea that a person can kill another legally ruins the sanctity of human life. The debate is interesting because the sides present evidence which affects the daily lives of people around the globe. For example, the discussion considers the effect on organ donation and harvesting. The incentives to legalize euthanasia are fairly attractive however euthanasia should not be approved because it poses a universal threat to human life.
Arguments for Euthanasia
According to Djupe and Olson, the First Amendment in the American constitutions describes the freedom of expression for individuals and groups (156). Most countries in the world have some section in their constitution with a similar ideology as the first amendment. In short, people are allowed to live as they wish provided their actions are friendly or no negative impact on others. Such a statement sounds liberating because it welcomes every group or person to act freely without judgment. The same principle should apply to cases of Euthanasia for Terminally ill patients. People reserve the right to choose whether to suffer slowly up to their death or have euthanasia (which refers to an easy death) (158). All those formulated policies or laws created to maintain peace and order focus on the individual rights. A person has the general right to control their body and as such, are capable of determining how long they wish to exist in agony. Besides, voluntary Euthanasia should be acceptable because the chances are that the person has a living will or the doctors determine beyond reasonable doubt that the survival rate is extremely low and non-existent.
Yount suggests that the constitutional right to live also suggest that people should or do have the right to die (67). The idea being that death is part of life, so the rights extend towards that side too. The general feelings associated with death associate it with a tragedy due to the fear of unknown. People forget that death can be a good thing when it saves a person from torment in the physical state. On the other hand, if the argument becomes that death is a horrible phenomenon filled with pain and resentment, then the patient possesses the right to reduce the process (78). Some illnesses have no cure, and thus, the person ends up dying in the long run as they continue to weaken physically. From such a perspective, individual rights outweigh those of the country or groups because the impact is on the person. Every government agrees that murder is wrong, but euthanasia is different on circumstances. The practice is tolerable when the doctors or a separate and independent party examines the conditions of the patient and determine that the individual right to live has not been violated. In fact, most of those who oppose are people with minimal or no exposure to the psychological damage expressed by patients and close associates. A theoretical approach would be to fight any form of ‘killing’ while a practical method considers all sides of the debate.
Regulation of Euthanasia would occur in any situation because of the universal rules against killing. Medical professionals are advised against killing any patient who wishes to live whether they have a chronic disease or notCITATION Per12 p 40 l 1033 (Pereira 40). Even so, the practice of euthanasia in places where it is acceptable occurs after thorough consultation with all parties as a requisite duty for human dignity. In the 21st century, the concept of privacy favors mercy killing because freedom of expression allows psychosocial diversity. Critics may argue that making the process legal could create some pressure on patients; relatives and doctors creating an environment which encourages patients to concede to euthanasia. Nonetheless, the situation is resolved when a therapist becomes a necessary requirement to determine the sanity of a patient. Another view of the matter is the unethical killing or suicide attempts by patients. If the authority fails to acknowledge euthanasia on a formal basis, people may result in criminal activities. These informal setups may create more harm. Imagine a person who decides to ingest poison or jump off a bridge rather live another day in agony. The process would be more painful than a doctor using a mild potion to achieve the same.
Velasquez (307) asserts that a common belief among people is that the best decision would be the one which yields the best results. Any utilitarian would concur with the concept of allowing a person to reduce pain through Euthanasia rather than continue to suffer a while longer when the outcome is the same. Patients argue that they suffer the loss of dignity, constant pain, and being a burden to others. These claims affect the patients, their families, doctors, and friends as a whole. The first reaction would be to offer spiritual or psychiatric counseling, but with time, they may consider honoring the wishes of those dying. Another extreme explanation for Euthanasia is the scarcity of medical resources (265). Some proposers may argue spending more on chronic diseases uses up resources that could be used for others. The argument feels inhumane and a violation of rights, however, it may apply in a matter of life and death. Death would not seem so terrible if people decided to use a utilitarian standpoint. The first point being that death is devastating because of the broken links to people. Conversely, euthanasia should not focus on the loss of time with family and friends but rather on the idea that at some point the physical or psychological pain overshadows the treasured moments. Immanuel Kant describes morality as a universal truth in that a moral act or decision is one which is accepted by everyone given similar circumstances. Studies show that most people in these conditions wish for euthanasia. As state earlier, a majority of those against it have never had to make a decision revolving life and death.
Arguments against Euthanasia
A popular objection to the practice originates from religious beliefs. Most religions in existence today such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism among others believe in free will but assert that morals and rules should be upheldCITATION Dju14 p 203-206 l 1033 (Djupe and Olson 203-206). The omniscient aspect of a Supreme God dictates that as creatures of God, humans must avoid killing as much as possible. The argument being that only the creator should have control over life and death. As such, euthanasia is considered a mortal sin among the faithful. The religious aspect supports suffering due to the advantage of linking people to their God. These people are expected to seek comfort and strength in a divine being during strenuous moments of life. Besides, the idea of euthanasia sounds like a condemnation for those unfortunate to contract some awful disease. The idea discourages religious leaders from accepting an ethical practice deemed to diminish individual lives. A good example of the religious view can be traced to Christianity. The faithful are taught that temptations and agony allow them to share in the passion of Jesus Christ, a spiritual figure considered to be the son of God that died on the cross to save the human race. Additionally, Islam condemns killing of people unless passed during a judicial process. Most Muslims are against the practice despite the fact that some Islamic committees believe that euthanasia could be beneficial.
On a more secular view, human life still appears sacred based on several reasons. One of the reasons would be the protection of dignityCITATION Dav12 p 46 l 1033 (Cundiff 46). People assume that developing somewhat ethical reasons for killing establishes gateways for other things. For example, people would assume that murder is acceptable provided that the legal parameters are respected; in short, killing is ethical if the individual can get away with it. Those against euthanasia view life as a destination rather than a path to something else. In so doing, people should try as much as possible to stay alive whether healthy or not. Human life is worthwhile irrespective of how much joy or agony a person endures. Death, in this perspective, seems pointless because people end up losing an infinitely precious asset. The basic goal in the medical fraternity is to sustain life. Euthanasia goes against the general assumption because it encourages psychological comfort expected in death rather than sustenance.
Furthermore, a simple acceptance of individual rights to mercy killing could trigger involuntary actions. Realistically speaking, it is impossible to guarantee that any form of euthanasia occurs with the best interests of the said patient at heart. Any law proposing euthanasia as a medical practice might be used to cover up murders in the long run. More so, the fear of killing a patient during diagnosis or treatment maintains some form of restriction for medical practitioners and other stake holders. Euthanasia could increase the power of a medical officer to the detriment of a patient against popular belief. Cundiff states that the universal rule in medicine is that the patient is a crucial part of the treatment and should be consulted on matters concerning his health (51). Euthanasia reduces the power of the client because it includes an option of demise rather than hope. In the past, patients had no choice but to receive curative treatment that increased chances of survival as well as promoted research and innovation. Euthanasia has the possibility of reducing research and innovation on chronic diseases. More so, the issue of scarcity of resources discussed earlier might force health organizations to kill some patients with the hopes of saving resources. There are high chances that voluntary euthanasia can be used for political reasons.
Palliative care could easily substitute the need for euthanasia. The patients receive spiritual, psychological, and physical aimed to reduce pain. The principle of double effect where the patient receives drugs that relieve pain but shorten the life appears as a passive form of euthanasia. Nonetheless, it prevents the deliberate action of doctors to cause deathCITATION Per12 p 42 l 1033 (Pereira 42). Organ donation and harvesting has become a popular trend in the medical world for saving patients. The whole process appears honorable, but euthanasia presents an opportunity to criminal-minded individuals to kill a person for donation. They may amend the definition of vegetative state or clinically dead as a way of availing the number of organs. Equally important is the query on administering euthanasia on patients suffering from psychological problems. Individuals suffering from depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or any other mental problem may request for euthanasia. Medical consultants would be forced to determine whether the physical illness is the only qualification for mercy killing. There would be debates on whether such a policy would be fair to patients with other problems. For instance, patients with Alzheimer’s disease suffer from dementia which alters their general behavior. Patients aware of how the disease affects their loved ones may consider euthanasia even though their physical health is not affectedCITATION And12 p 82 l 1033 (Kanner 82). They can continue to live comfortably with proper care, yet they want to die before the condition becomes severe. Comparison between this patient and another person going through the last agonizing stages of cancer prove challenging. Individual freedom of expression suggests equal treatment yet one of the patients has an opportunity to live longer. Other considerations such as age and gender would arise that worsen the situation. Euthanasia on children would be controversial as opposed to consenting adults. Therefore; the issue of euthanasia should not be legalized because of the ambiguity surrounding the applicability.
Discussion and Conclusion
Euthanasia is interesting medical predicament because it examines the possibility of killing another person legally. Proposers of the technique believe that freedom of expression encourages it. The right to life encompasses a suggested right to choose how one dies. A person has a personal right to control what happens to their body provided it has no negative effect on others. A detailed explanation of what conditions permit mercy killing would negate any attempt to kill a patient illegally. From a utilitarianism point of view, death via euthanasia results in happiness than prolonging the period of suffering in the physical state. In effect, the request for euthanasia takes place at a point when the physical pain is higher than the pleasure of living. Supporters of euthanasia show a substantive consideration for the emotional and physical well-being of the individual.
On the other hand, those against the procedure present numerous reasons opposing its legalization. The most notable opposition comes from religious individuals who regard matters of life and death to be of divine nature. People who commit or aid in euthanasia are regarded as sinners before God. The secular opposition states that legalization would create a permissible gateway to other serious offenses. For example, the government could approve voluntary euthanasia and with time, allow the non-voluntary type. More so, it creates a leeway for criminal activities targeting human life and harvesting of organs. In essence, mercy killing supports despair rather than hope. Some propose the use of palliative care that inspires the use of alternative sources of comfort.
A quick analysis of the sources reveals the underlying debate is about the value of life and the ambiguity surrounding euthanasia as a medical procedure. People are worried that the practice will devalue life while others think it is an act of mercy. If euthanasia is approved, the scope of usability is uncertain because people wonder if those terminally ill are those with physically visible diseases or those with psychological problems. The question as to whether age and gender may affect the parameters set for euthanasia is also present. More so, the possibility of misuse is high either for financial or political reasons. The reasons against euthanasia appear stronger than those supporting, therefore, euthanasia should not be formally approved. Legalization would endanger the lives of healthy people because criminals can manipulate the system.

Works Cited
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Cundiff, David. Euthanasia is Not the Answer: A Hospice Physician’s View. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
Djupe, Paul and Laura Olson. Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics. New York CIty: Infobase Publishing, 2014.
Kanner, Andreas. Depression in Neurologic Disorders: Diagnosis and Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
Pereira, James. “Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls.” Current Oncology (2012): pp 38-45. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710.
Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013.
Yount, Lisa. Right to Die and Euthanasia. New York City: Facts on File Publishers, 2007.