Let us start by stating a simple fact. Euthanasia is most
definitely not a remote country in Africa. Infact its literal meaning is good death.
Its modern usage however has come to mean the intentional killing, by act or
omission, of a person whose life is felt, by themselves or by others, to be not
worth living. "Not worth.” Who are we to judge?
But in some cases, death does seem
like a better haven than to suffer. Terminally ill and incurably disabled
people are those most at risk of having their lives deemed "not worth
These are the people who can supposedly benefit from the legalization of
euthanasia. Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for
depressed or dependent people. Financial considerations, added to the concern
about "being a burden' could serve as powerful forces that would lead a
person to supposedly opt for euthanasia
There will come a time when society
would need to face the end of the voluntary euthanasia debate: Those cases
would challenge most people's support for the issue, the circumstances which
constitute the untrodden ground. To understand the debate for and against
euthanasia, people must first understand the various t forms of euthanasia that
include passive, active, voluntary and involuntary. Passive euthanasia is the
withholding of respirators and other life-sustaining equipment, procedures, or
treatment and is not typically objected to bylaw or most religions.
Active euthanasia is intentionally
causing the death of another person through specific actions voluntary
euthanasia in this case the person makes his/her wish to die known and he /she
may also request for or act in ways to end their lives. Involuntary euthanasia
refers to a scenario where the person wishes to live but is killed. Normally
this would be termed as murder but not always.
Advances in medical technology
today now mean that people can live longer and all those suffering for long
periods of time due to illnesses can too yes, this does often mean an
agonizingly slow death. Suicide and assisted suicide is often viewed as the
most logical choice when faced with these circumstances. As far back as the
16th Century, people have been arguing for the terminally ill to be aided in
ending life by physicians who should not be held morally or legally to blame
for assisting the individual. The beginning of the 21st Century saw many bills
supporting the use of euthanasia proposed in many legislatures but with little
to no success. The fact is that everyone is going to die; the only question
that remains to be answered is when, how, and under what conditions.
Believers in anti-euthanasia argue that the desire to die is caused by
depression, and as such is fully treatable. While it is true that illnesses and
terminal conditions cause depression this is not just common but also expected.
However, no degree of depression treatment can change the circumstances of a
patient's condition: terminally sick is terminally sick. There is no other way
apart from death that can change these circumstances.
Medication and counseling for
depression are not going to give back one's self-worth, satisfaction, or ease
suffering when presented with the inevitable. This is not an argument about how
some cases can benefit from euthanasia, but how can those cases be conducted in
an ethical manner. The discussion over human euthanasia evokes strong emotions
on both sides of the debate. Convincing justifications are found for both
viewpoints. Doubtless, at times a need exists for euthanasia, be that in
active, passive, involuntary, or voluntary form, and some forms of euthanasia
do exist; however, society must ask what the cost of life and death is.
0 comments:
Post a Comment