Euthanasia is a Greek term implying good death, and in medicine it is the act that is undertaken by just the physician, to end the life of the patient intentionally upon his or her request. The physician administers a lethal substance to ensure the patient dies slowly and painlessly (Pereira). There are many nations where Euthanasia is legal due to its many advantages. Examples of nations where euthanasia is legal to include Belgium, Netherland, and Luxembourg. In the U.S, the practice continues to be performed in some specific states such as Washington and Oregon, but it is illegal. In the state of Montana, the bill of legalizing it was passed by the legislature in the year 2010, but it was defeated by the Senate Judiciary Committee of the state. This is not an easy debate because, in Netherland, the practice was legalized in 2001, after more than thirty years of public debate. The guidelines and procedures of conducting and controlling euthanasia had been started since 1980. In this context, California should consider many factors before making the move of legalizing euthanasia.
Euthanasia has been a controversial subject of debate in the U.S because many people view it has infringement of an individuals fundamental right to live. Such law should be considered when the patient becomes severely incompetent and the continuation of treatment is deemed to be too burdensome, or it is of no medical benefit. A survey conducted in U.S showed that 46% of the physician believes that voluntary euthanasia should be permitted, and 41% disagrees with the subject while 14% of the doctor believes that it should be based on the circumstances. In todays world, people should be given an opportunity to choose what to do with their life especially when they are such severe pain, and medication becomes of no help anymore. The following are the reasons why California should legalize euthanasia.
Human beings have a right to die because without death we would not have human life by its very definition. The debate of whether to legalize this practice always revolves around the violation of human right to life. In this move, ant-euthanasia argues that euthanasia infringes on humans fundamental right to live. But these proponents do not see that life as human beings encompass death. Just the way coin has two sides, the life of people cannot occur without death. This means that people who argue the every person is entitled to fundamental right to live, they naively also concur that each man has basic right to die. Because people can determine the course of their lives by their own will, then they have the right t live their lives and determine their own course. Human beings have a capacity to decide about their lives naturally hence they should be able to determine how they die. The right to life has no connection or has no said to the right of the die. The right to die and the right to live are two distinct rights, but they are related in one way or the other. The two rights are mutually exclusive because of the right to live itself only with self-determined life and finishes with the right to die. On the other hand, the right to die begins after the life ends. When someone is alive, he/she is exercising the right to life, and when the life ends, one starts to exercise the right to die. People prefer natural death and not demise resulting from another human being who will have taken a right to live thereby denying an individual the right to live. In this sense, if the same significant weight is given to individual right to live, then a human should also be given equal weight on their right to die.
Second reason is that it protects human dignity and selfhood. This is because self-determination is one of the main elements that make human beings. Self-determination is the ability to determine of human beings to determine their destiny as a person, and it is enhanced by peoples ability to think for themselves. In a situation where a person is unable to perform basics of life such as move, breath, or even think for themselves due to illness should be considered a special case. In this situation, one has effectively removed his/her ability to self-determine, which is a significant element of being a person(Anderson). Human being sense of self is formed as people progresses through life. One grows his personality as human by his/her choices or experiences. It is this sense of self that is the foundation of human dignity.
Taking the case of an individual who can no longer breathe, think. Or move by himself and add an element of excess and constant pain to a situation where they see death as the only alternative. As a result of this constant pain, a person eventually loses their self as compared to when they could form opinions, move around, and self-determine. This is a distant memory for someone in such great pain, and the only thing that they will be real to them is the constant pain they are experiencing that given moment (Anderson). At this moment, the patient is unable to cry out in pain despite the overwhelming pain. For example, Tony Nicklinson proposed the legalization of euthanasia for several times but it was highly rejected. After sometimes, he was diagnosed with an ailment that hindered him from making any movement, and all his muscles could not make any movement too. After his request to be allowed to have euthanasia, he decided to starve himself to death, and it took him just a week without any food or water. Another instance is that of Kelly Taylor who starved herself for nineteen days with an aiming of dying. Due to lack of euthanasia, their quality of life was highly deteriorated, and if California does not legalize this practice, many more people will continue to undergo such demeaning processes. If people have to fast, they will eventually die in a bad state, and they have already lost their dignity. If the state legalizes euthanasia, people will have an opportunity to end or finish their life and ensure that their human dignity is intact.
Lastly, euthanasia saves live as most of the practice is ongoing but it is done without the consent of the patient. Many physicians continue to end the life of their patients who they find in critical condition, and it seems the only technique of reducing the pain is by dying gradually. In a research conducted in 2005 about euthanasia in Netherland revealed that 0.4% of the total number of euthanasia done is conducted without the consent of the patient. When this research was being conducted, euthanasia was legal in Netherland. An earlier research which was conducted in 1991 in the same country before its legalization showed that 0.8% of euthanasia was conducted without the consent of the patients (Anderson). This means that legalization of euthanasia had the reverse of the anticipated effect and reduced the unacceptable practice of euthanasia without consent by half. Looking at these figures, legalization of euthanasia has saved lives because it gives a protected and regulated framework of how physician works. The doctors are now required to first get explicit consent from the patient before performing euthanasia.
The doctors who work in States where euthanasia is illegal, they will find themselves in dilemma of whether to take chances with resuscitation or not. At the end of the end, they may avoid the process allowing the death to take place naturally (Hammer). In such a situation when euthanasia is a legal practice physician would take the necessary action after consulting the clients and may be safe life. The clients would be in a position to write their memoir what kind of medication they should receive at this critical time of their life (Doyal 1079-1080).
In some countries such as Netherlands, euthanasia has become common such that family members or nurses have the power to determine whether the patient requires the practice or not. In some cases denying someone euthanasia in Netherland is considered as a kind of discrimination to people suffering from chronic diseases. California should borrow the idea from Netherlands and start providing such services. It is predicted that due to the demand of Euthanasia, some people might start going to receive their medical services in states or nations where they can receive the kind of services they wish. Some elderly members of the society have their memoir dictating in the case of extreme pain euthanasia should be administered, but since it is illegal, such information cannot be availed in hospital files or computers. Legalization the practice would remove the notion that the action is immoral and people will be able to take the course of their life when the need arises.
Worked Cited
Anderson, Dave. Reasons Euthanasia Should Be Legal Everywhere. 2014. Web. 12 May 2017.
Doyal, Len. "Why Active Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalised." BMJ 323.7321 (2001): 1079-1080. Web.Exploring the Beliefs Underlying Attitudes to Active Voluntary Euthanasia in a Sample of Australian Medical Practitioners and Nurses: a Qualitative Analysis. Baywood Publishing Company, 2008.
Hammer, Charles. "How Allowing Euthanasia And Assisted-Suicide Would Save Lives." Kansas City. N.p., 2016. Web. 12 May 2017.
Pereira, J. "Legalizing Euthanasia Or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion Of Safeguards And Controls." Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): n. pag. Web.Richardson, Peter. How to Die in Oregon. 2015
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
