A paper on euthanasia

The term ‘ euthanasia’ according to the 2007 guidelines on euthanasia published by the American Veterinary Medical Association is derived from the Greek term eu meaning good and thanato meaning death, combining the two Greek words, euthanasia means good death.

However, the definition was applied to animal with the concept that if animals life is to be taken, it should be done with the highest degree ofrespectand with an emphasis on making death as pain less and distress free as possible.

For some patients who had been suffering from illness and had bed ridden for a long period of time, death is better than to live having that kind of situation.

Some even prayed that God take their lives, as they are themselves tired of their condition so they beg that they had better be dead. I would say that euthanasia is humane act as death is inevitable for everyone. Those who are suffering extreme pain or are brain dead with hopeless chance of survival must be given option be they wished to die. Euthanasia or painless death should be an option for the patient with terminal illness as part of their last will.

Generally Euthanasia is the deliberate killing by act of omission of the immediatefamilymember being for the patient alleged benefit. Voluntary euthanasia however means that the person has requested to be killed; physician assisted euthanasia is whendoctorassisted the patient to kill him or herself.

This subject is a good topic because it is a real ethical issue that the society is facing. Based on the recent development on the study of euthanasia, American doctors find it a competent way of easing a patient of the pain and struggle caused by his or her terminal illness. Ian Dowbiggin pointed out that with diagnosis and prognosis more accurate; physicians were able to with fair probability whether a patient was unlikely to recover (p. 5). Thus, according to Dowbiggin doctors “ could now propose active euthanasia” particularly on patients with hopeless chance of recovery.

Evaluation

Everyone will surely die but the manner by which death comes differs and at a different age. Euthanasia is truly a good death because patients are first given relief from pain before administering a lethal dose of morphine or chloroform that would allow a painless death of the patient.

It is quite common that despite of themodern lifesavingtechnologymany people are extremely suffering from terminal illness, in which the only thing that technology can do is to prolong the patient’s life, which eventually will also end in death. I believed that the quality of death by euthanasia is one that is with dignity, as the patient’s remaining life was treated with highest degree of respect by emphasizing on painless death.

Prolonging the sufferings of patient from terminal illness reduces the quality and dignity of his life and increases the level of the patient’s suffering. In the words of Shai Joshua Lavi, the purpose euthanasia society was to “ relieve needless human suffering” (p. 120) Citing the ESA (Euthanasia society of America) statement, Lavi stated that euthanasia is the lawful termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary suffering under adequate safeguard.

However, regardless of the quality of death by euthanasia, it remains morally a criminal act to take someone’s life. Euthanasia is humanistic argument, which view life based on secular perspective. Life is sacred and God has the right to take it back, and euthanasia is not an excuse to escape the consequence of humanity’s sin that made human body vulnerable to disease.

Comparing the good and the bad side, the effectiveness and ineffectiveness, its best and its worst, the competency and in competency, and its success and unsuccessfulness, Euthanasia has been widely thought to have bad impact on society rather than good.

The proponents of those who favor euthanasia emphasized that it good for terminally ill patient while the greater majority claims euthanasia is a crime on human life. Thus, efforts by proponents of euthanasia were mostly unsuccessful than success.

During the earlier period prior to World War I, Dowbiggin noted that many people supports doctors administering euthanasia on terminally ill patient. Perhaps euthanasia’s best were widely recognized than its worst, however with improve technology this has been reversed. In most comparison, today’s generation oppose euthanasia, and cast their opinion against it.

Evaluative Claim

Looking at the positive and negative aspect of I would say that euthanasia is a better option not only for the patient but also for the love ones who are directly affected by the circumstances surrounding the patient’s illness. With out congress-enacted law on euthanasia, it will remain an ethical debate whether or not it will be allowed. However, based on reality of the situation of terminally ill patient, Euthanasia is a competent option for the benefit of the patient who wished for it.

The criteria on which euthanasia has to be administered have been quite clear. Patients with terminal illness and whose chance of survival is hopeless, is suffering from extreme pain, and is begging for his or her death are qualified applicant. According to Derek Humphry, the quality of life is vital and if the body is destroyed by disease that is not worth living (p. 90). Humphry noted that it is an intensely individual decision which should not be thwarted” (p. 90)

Evidence that the subject meet the criteria is that those that had assessed or had performed euthanasia in all parts of the world that had been convicted was either paroled, or released. Humphry pointed out that in some strongest places; tolerance for euthanasia appears (p. 4) Evidence suggest that the lack of specific laws of many countries regarding euthanasia, means it meets the criteria.

Work Cited

Dowbiggin, Ian. A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement USA: Oxford University Press, 2003

Humphry, Derek. The Good Euthanasia Guide 2004: Where, What, and Who in Choices in Dying. USA: Norris Lane Press, 2004.

Lavi, Joshua Shai. A History of Euthanasia in the United States. USA: Princeton University Press, 2005.

AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia

http://www. avma. org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia. pdf  June 2007.