research paper

The Case against Euthanasia

Mercy killing has been touted as doctor assisted suicides with the intention of enhancing compassion for terminally ill patients. The debate has been welcomed in many states with the entire globe legislating to accept the practice in nursing. However, with the increase of patient population and the rise of new infections in the world, there has been an increased scarcity of medical machines and drugs in both public and private hospitals. With this circumstance, there has been the abuse of this provision. Global governments should strive towards banning the practice as it has resulted in disregard for human rights, undermine doctor’s commitment and discourages the search for new medical interventions.

I) Euthanasia has lowered the momentum of medics and researchers in public health from discovering pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for medical conditions.

Research conducted in Canada has indicated that since the legalization of the practice in the nursing profession, the cases of euthanasia have doubled in record two years (Keown, 2018).

This indicates that there is a general perception and tendency with the medics to substitute mercy killing with other important interventions at the disposal of these professionals.

In a report developed by an association of medics in the United States of America, it was established that since the enactment that allowed the incorporation of euthanasia in medical practices has deflated research and the pursuit of discovering new medicine for most condition (Keown, 2018).

II) Mercy killing is a contravention of the rights of the patients subjected to it. Ideally, medics have the silent obligation of protecting all life, an aspect that is the greatest causality of the adoption of the practice in medicine.

Experts have continually argued that at the point of dying patients have little consent on their issues and their ability to make decisions should not be relied upon for such critical moves by doctors (Tan, 2017).

In such circumstances, if doctors were to make the decision to terminate their lives, the practice will be against the principles of patients’ rights.

Additionally, the adoption of the practice insinuates that it is acceptable for some people to die and others to survive; those with medical conditions can be left to die and let the healthy ones live (Grodin et al., 2018).

This is a poor communication to the wider population who trust governments and health practitioners to mind their medical welfare.

III) However medical activists suggest that one has the right to die just like they enjoy other universal rights.

Patients with terminal illnesses develop strenuous symptoms, most which result in untold suffering by the patients with others denying the dignity of patients in hospital beds. These pains include pain, loss of memory immobility and wounds that dent their image and self-appreciation.

Plagued with these sufferings, one should be accorded the right to terminate life to avoid instances where they will live without dignity.

IV) Furthermore continued life support for patients with terminal illnesses result in poor utilization of the scarce medical resources such as more personnel, more medicines and other intervention as well as intensive care unit beds (Petrović, 2017).

In conclusion, Euthanasia has caused more suffering on patients that it has benefited them. Patients who sign up for the practice do not have consent on their actions, the practice has been misused to become an alternative for previous interventions and indicates that some patients have the right to live while those terminally ill should just die.

References

Grodin, M. A., Miller, E. L., & Kelly, J. I. (2018). The Nazi physicians as leaders in eugenics and “euthanasia”: Lessons for today. American journal of public health, 108(1), 53-57.

Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press.

Petrović, D. (2017). “Mercy killing” in comparative legislation. Strani pravni život, (4), 169-180.

Tan, S. H. (2017). The Case against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia-A Jurisprudential Consideration. SAcLJ, 29, 375.