Introduction
One of the most socially debatable issues over the past years is the healthcare provider’s capacity to accept or deny euthanasia. World Health Organization report indicates that often in their line of duty, physicians usually are faced with euthanasia as a challenge. Ideally, the act is regarded as the intentional termination of an individual’s life at the person’s request, usually carried out by the physician. In most cases, it is referred to as assisted suicide, as the medic administers the prescribed lethal medication. Over the years, the legalization of the act has become a controversial topic for discussion across global nations. Proponents believe it is the only best solution for terminally ill patients. Contrary, opponents noted that the action undermines the sacred nature of human life. In such situations, healthcare providers usually find it tough to make the right decisions. The extreme situation usually leads to controversy about killing or letting the patient live. This paper aims to debate the controversy on the issue of euthanasia, its benefits, and shortcomings and provide an ideal position that society should follow to achieve maximum benefits.
Proponents of the Idea
The above thesis has continued to compel physicians to make a tough choice between preserving the lives of these patients and providing assisted suicide. The proposers of the idea believe that euthanasia is one of the best ways of dealing with a terminal illness, especially where great pain exists. The criteria stipulate that the action should be performed at the patient’s request, their suffering is unbearable, and there is no prospect of improvement (Awuor 3). Proponents further believe that the act is not only allowed for terminally ill patients but also for patients with severe dementia or psychological problems. Medical scholars accept that the approach is effective since it helps to relieve the patient from pain and allows them to rest in peace. Subsequently, the act helps relieve the family members of the social and physiological pain they may be experiencing. That means it is the only hope that may help create peace among the patient and the family members experiencing serious healthcare challenges in the community.
The second most critical argument forwarded by the proponents is that life is a private matter, and people should have the option of terminating it with dignity. Scholars of the position believe that human beings have the power to create and end their lives at will. This argument expands the ground of personal autonomy of human life. As a result, it has been used as the major way of providing these patients with the “kill Pill” to help in helping these people to complete their lives (Awuor 5). Further, the new idea supports the subsequent one by providing a chance to terminate someone’s life if they are terminally ill. Even though the criteria used in the two cases are open to interpretation, the norm dictates that medical conditions should be used as the sole reason for euthanasia.
Euthanasia is also a powerful tool that may help relieve the nation from the escalating cost of health care. According to one of the major studies by the World Health Organization (WHO), the American healthcare cost has escalated to about $3 trillion (Dierickx 113). The above cost is expected to continue increasing in the subsequent years if no proper measures are undertaken. The main cause of such high rates is terminal diseases such as cancer, dementia, and HIV/ AIDs. These diseases involve relatively high costs of therapies that are highly pressing to the national economy. For instance, the average cost of chemotherapy for cancer patients is approximately $43,000 to $73000 (Awuor 16). they depend on the nature of the facility where the patient is admitted. Therefore, medical economists believe that by carrying out the act of euthanasia, the healthcare providers will save the nation from the sinking economy created by such a high amount of medical cost.
Opponents of the Idea
Contrary to the opponents, there is an increase in concern among health care providers, patients, and bioethics. According to the United States of America Code of Ethics, it is illegal to deliberately cause a patient’s death. The law believes that life is sacred and nobody has the mandate to terminate it (Kumar, p. 96). Therefore, the legalization of the idea undermines the sacred nature of life and the dignity of the people. By carrying out the act, the healthcare providers are contravening the continuous idea of the government investing money in human medication only for the physicians to provide assisted suicide. In other words, the proposers of the idea are working towards killing rather than saving human lives. They no longer care about preserving the sacred life (Awuor 20). This trend, in turn, is believed to result in an unexpectedly high number of deaths across the globe.
Further, many initiated pieces of research have continued to indicate the possible dangers of assisted suicide. In their opinion, these scholars have accepted that the act puts vulnerable people at risk of dying earlier. Having it as the only option can make such people harbor death as the best option for their life challenges. Applying the option to incapacitated members of society further makes them more vulnerable and may deny them the right to life (Justo 25). Subsequently, it contradicts the government’s role, mainly to protect and provide a quality life to the citizens. That means instead of protecting the community members, it only makes them vulnerable amid the health challenges that continue to affect their lives.
Finally, the members of society need to understand that there is no reasonable solution to help alleviate suffering. The act means that physicians should work to try all the possible means to help in restoring life (Awuor 22). They must work to provide good palliative care to terminally ill patients. Through their healthcare providers, the government should develop reasonable palliative care facilities capable of dealing with society’s various healthcare challenges. Palliative care should be considered one of the fundamental human rights to be integrated into the health care system. Consequently, they must provide the necessary resources critical for the effective delivery of the services required by the patients.
Conclusion
Based on the presented arguments, it is clear that the healthcare community should not embrace the idea of euthanasia. Human dignities, especially the vulnerable members of society, are in danger. Instead of providing assisted suicide, people should use every opportunity to restore human dignity and assist people to live. In other words, they should understand that euthanasia is not a permanent solution to the challenges facing the members of society. The alternative approach of caring for life will help to restore the health of vulnerable patients who are almost giving up in hospitals across the globe. In brief, physicians should work to restore the life of patients using all possible means.
Works Cited
Awuor, Diana Blench. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: An Argumentative Analysis for the Legalization of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2022, 1-36. Web.
Kumar, Ajay, Aseem Mehra, and Ajit Avasthi. “Euthanasia: A Debate—For and Against”, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research, vol. 55, no.2, 2021, pp. 91-96. Web.
Justo Aznar. El, Legalización De La Eutanasia Y., And Suicidio Asistido. “Opinion of physicians and the general population on the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.” Cuadernos De Bioética 32.104 (2021): 23-36. Web.