Euthanasia: Exploring Ethical, Legal, and Social Perspectives

This essay delves into the multifaceted debate surrounding euthanasia, examining the arguments for and against assisted suicide. It explores the concept of a dignified death, focusing on the rights of terminally ill patients and the potential to alleviate suffering when medical interventions offer no further relief. The essay highlights the financial and emotional burdens on patients, families, and healthcare systems, arguing that euthanasia can be a compassionate solution in specific circumstances. It acknowledges counterarguments related to the sanctity of life and the potential for misuse, emphasizing the need for careful legislation and safeguards. The essay emphasizes the importance of considering the individual's wishes, the role of medical professionals, and the preservation of human dignity in end-of-life decisions. By exploring these complex ethical, legal, and social perspectives, the essay provides a comprehensive overview of the ongoing discussion surrounding euthanasia.

Running Head: EUTHANASIA – WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED 1

EUTHANASIA: WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED 2
Human life is sacred. The western world is predominantly Christian and holds this view.
However, questions have been come up about the right of people to die a dignified death, and
whether the application of assisted suicide, otherwise known as euthanasia, is unethical (Ekeke
& Ikegbu, 2010). Sometimes it may be in the victim’s best interests to have their lives taken.
They may be suffering from terminal illnesses which involve extreme suffering, with the medical
field incapable of providing any remedy other than death (Annadurai, Danasekaran & Mani,
2014). In such situations, I believe that the person should be given the right to die, so that their
suffering can be stopped, to stop the financial burden on the hospital and family, and to preserve
the dignity of the dying person.
Stopping the suffering
Human beings are at liberty to chart their destiny. This is to the extent that they do not
infringe on the rights of other people (Math, 2012). Terminally ill patients, including those
suffering from advanced stages of cancer and AIDS, may sometimes feel that they deserve the
right to a painless death, seeing that as things stand, the medical profession cannot offer them
any respite from their troubles (Rathor, Rani & Shah, 2014). The wish should be granted. It will
be strictly within their rights to do so, and it will put them out of the heart-wrenching misery that
these illnesses bring them. While ethical issues may be floated to object the primary rights of
individuals to decide their own lives’ course, it is necessary to consider the reasoning behind
taking one’s life, and why doctors, with their knowledge in the field, sometimes support the
stance (Sinha, Basu & Sarkheel, 2012). Doctors have the responsibility of helping their clients
either regain their health or depart with dignity. In the instance the doctor feels that the pain will
continue without any remedy being available in the medical field, it should be possible to
prescribe euthanasia (Sinha, Basu & Sarkheel, 2012). Agreeing to euthanasia does not mean that

EUTHANASIA: WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED 3
the sanctity of life is not respected by the people involved. The ultimate decision of experience
should include the direct input of the person who is the subject of the euthanasia, as well as their
loved ones. The guiding reasoning should be that there are situations in which doctors cannot do
anything to remedy the issues a patient has.
Stop the financial burden on the hospital and family
Terminal illnesses present caregivers and the dying patient, together with their families,
with a huge emotional and economic burden. In most cases, the person undergoing the existential
illness and irrepressible pain is also in dire financial straits. They can hardly afford to pay for the
care they are receiving, due to having exhausted their savings, medical schemes and insurance,
and even donations from well-wishers. Terminal care requires specialized treatment, with those
who provide it charging a premium price to care for the patient. In some cases, the family is
unable to take the patient home due to the delicate condition they are in, instead of being forced
to put their lives on hold, and incurs substantial financial costs in the process, to care for their
loved ones (Goel, 2008). This cost has a huge effect on their long-term financial well being, and
generally, on the community they live in. This is another reason why euthanasia should be
legalized. The parties described here spend large amounts of money – and other resources, taking
care of their loved ones and clients. In the end, they all understand that their efforts will do
nothing more than lengthening the suffering of the patient. This should not be the case. Such
resources could be better used in first ensuring that preventive responses to the conditions
causing terminal illnesses are better prevented before the person reaches this phase (Strinic,
2015).

EUTHANASIA: WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED 4
Preserve the dignity of the dying person
Euthanasia is not a means by which people get rid of the sick so that the world can be
better without them. In making legislation and considering the rights of people to leading a
dignified life, empirical evidence should be preferred. The opinion of the doctor is usually
backed with scientific evidence backing up any claims (Goel, 2008). When human error is
suspected or possible, other doctors, preferably with better qualifications should have a second
opinion. Such advice should not be open to subjective reasoning and interpretation. The
preservation of human dignity should be considered. Terminal illnesses degrade the individual to
the level no human should ever have to be in, akin to an animal. Euthanasia should be employed
to put them out of their misery (Boudreau & Somerville, 2014).
Counter-argument
According to Ekeke and Ikegbu (2010), there are no circumstances under which it can be
permissible to cut shot human life, especially in the case of illness. Quoting extensively from the
bible, the authors portray euthanasia as being an unchristian endeavor which cannot be allowed.
In other cases, patients no longer have the capacity to decide whether they should be euthanized
or not. They may not have left any will or another known wish for this to be done to them,
meaning that the decision is then delegated to their loved ones. This is inconsistent with the
stance of proponents of euthanasia, which insists that the individual should personally decide
(Goel, 2008). Financial savings should not be considered when human life is at stake because
human life is invaluable (Strinic, 2015).
Conclusion
Legislating to allow the practice of euthanasia is likely to be an emotive and controversial
issue I nany society even where it is now legal. Proponents of the practice have a strong case as

EUTHANASIA: WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED 5
they call for the right of people to decide their ultimate destiny. The advocacy for euthanasia
centers on stopping the suffering, the financial toll and the degradation of humans through
violent and incurable ailments. While counter – arguments talk of santity of life and potential
misuse of the procedure, laws must be carefully drafted to avoid misuse, while reminding
opponents that the issue affects the very essence of being human.

EUTHANASIA: WHY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED 6
References
Annadurai, K., Danasekaran, R., Mani, G. (2014). Euthanasia: right to die with dignity. Journal
of Family Medicine and Primary Care,3(4), 477-478.
Boudreau, J., Somerville, M. (2014). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a physician and ethicist's
perspectives. Medicolegal and Bioethics, 4, 1-12.
Ekeke, E., Ikegbu, E. (2010). The sanctity of human life in the twenty first century: the challenge
of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Educational Research, 1(9), 312-318.
Goel, V. (2008). Euthanasia – A dignified end of life! International NGO Journal, 3(12), 224-
231.
Golden, M., Zoanni, T. (2010). Killing us softly: the dangers of legalizing assisted suicide.
Disability and Health Journal, 3(2010), 16-30.
Math, S., Chaturvedi, S. (2012). euthanasia: Right to life v right to die. Indian Journal of
Medical Research, 136(6), 899-902.
Pereira, J. (2012). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and
controls. Current Oncology, 18(2), 29-45.
Rathor, M., Rani, M., Shah, A. (2014). Attitudes toward euthanasia and related issues among
physicians and patients in a multicultural society of Malaysia. Journal of Family
Medicine and Primary Care, 3(3), 230-237.
Sinha, V., Basu, S., Sarkheel, S. (2012). Euthanasia: An Indian Perspective. Indian Journal of
Psychiatry, 54(2), 177-183.
Strinic, V. (2015). Arguments in support and against euthanasia. British Journal of Medicine and
Medical Research, 9(7), 1-12.