The Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia

The debate of whether or not euthanasia is an ethical issue has been argued for multiple decades. In the modern day, there are multiple factors of euthanasia and different types. Two of the most debated types of euthanasia are involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. According to the Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Second Edition), involuntary euthanasia is when an unconscious patients family member chooses to withdraw medication or surgery that can save their family members life whereas voluntary euthanasia is when one chooses to the path of medical assisted suicide. Involuntary euthanasia is unethical because the patient doesnt choose their fate and the patients natural rights are being disregarded. Voluntary euthanasia is unethical because the patient is committing suicide and it turns doctors into murderers. In the occurrence of involuntary euthanasia, the patient is typically at their death bed, whether it be from a fatal accident or disease, and is normally not able to respond and communicate their wishes. When involuntary euthanasia takes place, the patients life is being gambled with. The persons life is being treated as if it were merely nothing. Doctors are disregarding the life of a human being. Brocklehursts Textbook Of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology (Seventh Edition) even goes as far as comparing the act of involuntary euthanasia to the murders committed by the Nazis stating that it is,and indication of how disregard for human life can contribute to greater atrocities. This may also affect the way society values a human life as well as make the views on murder seem acceptable. Not valuing the life of a human being by killing them without their consent is an unjustified and immoral resolution. Some might argue that no one has to power to choose when they die. However, your fate lies in the hands of one person, God. Therefore, having members of your family choose whether you live or die is not fair. The person receiving euthanization physically can not voice their opinion of whether their life should continue or end. Their thoughts and choices are not represented and it cannot be called moral if someone dies without choosing. It is called murder. One could compare this act to the euthanization of a family pet or animal. Therefore, one would be treating a human being as an animal, which is unethical in its own way. A human being holds more value than an animal because it lives with a purpose. This act is stripping away the natural rights in which the patient, a human being, are born with. Humans are persons and have moral responsibility. They have personhood and certain rights. All people deserve their natural rights, which includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. None of these can be achieved if the involuntary euthanization occurs. In the terms of voluntary euthanasia, it may also be seen as immoral and unethical From a religious standpoint, voluntary euthanasia is seen as suicide. The New Testament of the Christian Bible states, Do you not know that you are Gods temple and that God ?s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys Gods temple, God will destroy him. For Gods Temple is holy, and you are that temple. Choosing when you are going to die can be seen as an act against God himself. As previously stated, the fate of ones life rests in the hands of the Lord. It is also stated in the Bible in Exodus 20:13 that, You shall not murder.Therefore,, asking a doctor to euthanize you is considered ending the life of a person, whether it be you or someone else, can be considered murder. Morals play an important role in many different religions and cultures. One might argue that if euthanization harms no one else, then it should be okay to partake in the act. However, this is not the case. Voluntary euthanization teaches that it is okay to harm yourself and end your life. It can ruin society by teaching younger generations that suicide can be a normal part of someones life. Other people who may be effected are the family members of the patient. They receive no closure with the deceased and might be distraught that their family chose to end their life so abruptly. In the sense of utilitarianism, voluntary euthanization does not make the most amount of people happy and can therefore be considered immoral. Euthanization, both voluntary and involuntary, turn seemingly innocent doctors into murderers. They are committing the act of harming a person whether if its their choice or not. In the sense of involuntary, they are not even giving their patient a choice and are taking away their voice and opinion from a very serious matter. They, as well as the family, are deciding the fate and ignoring all morals. In addition, with modern medicines, doctors have the ability to choose whether their patient lives or dies. In fact, according to the American Medical Association, the Code of Ethics that all licensed doctors must follow states, Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physicians role as a healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would be pose serious societal risks. It also states that doctors should ,not abandon a patient once it is determined that a cure is impossible . Doctors are taking the life of weak people. They are putting ones life in their hands and choosing a path that would benefit no one. There is also the circumstances of complications and biases. Having involuntary euthanasia as an option, doctors can persuade family members that the patient is only suffering or tell them that they are only wasting resources that can be used for people who arent as fatal and have a better chance of living and recovering. For voluntary euthanasia, some doctors might feel like they do not want to follow through with the euthanization because of moral or religious standpoints. It can cause rifts in hospitals and can cause many to quit their jobs as doctors because they do not agree with the subject and killing innocent people. The dilemma of euthanasia causes many problems and does not really solve any. It simple creates an easy way out. One might argue that if a person is in a lot of pain, they should not have to suffer the symptoms. And although I agree, euthanasia should not be considered as an alternative. There are many different medications that can treat the pain even if the damage done to the body is not curable. For people who are in comas who would typically partake in involuntary euthanasia, there are options such as life support. For people who have cancer or other terminal illnesses, there are procedures and medication that may be taken that can ease the pain until the end. People deserve to live until their time has ended naturally. Both voluntary and involuntary euthanization have created a problem in the morals of society. The debate over whether or not they should be legalized in all states in the United States of America has been disputed over for many years. Despite that it may or may no be legalized in the future, it will always be seen as immoral. The process of euthanasia is one that is in peaceful yet gruesome. It is not simply putting someone to sleep. I believe that euthanization holds a deeper meaning. I believe it is the death of a person. I believe that euthanasia is immoral because it the murdering of an innocent person. Doctors and family member are becoming murderers and I do not believe that it is fair. Although I do not want anyone to suffer tremendously, I do not see euthanasia being a solution to problems. I only see it becoming a bigger problem than the dilemma it is attempting to fix. In conclusion. There are many different types of euthanasia and the ones previously stated are only two of the multiple processes. If it cause so many dilemmas, is it really moral? Euthanasia has many definitions, but it should always be known as murder.

Cite this page