Physics

From a broad perspective, there can be classifications of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, where the first is conducted with consent while the latter is without consent (Ibid, 2). Essentially, involuntary consent is given by a third party such as a family member or next of kin whereas voluntary euthanasia is consented to by the individual actually involved in the suicide. Moreover, there can be passive and active euthanasia. In passive euthanasia, life sustaining treatments are withdrawn or withheld and eventually the person dies. In active euthanasia, lethal substances are introduced into the person’s body and these force the individual’s life to end consequently (Ibid2, 1).

Euthanasia as a service is advocated for those facing unstoppable or irretraceable suffering and pain. For example, people who are terminally ill and in their last stages of dying or those needing relief from intractable or unstoppable pain and suffering. Others are those in a coma lasting a very long time with neither sign nor hope of recovery. However, here is always a chance of the patient recovering. Therefore, there is no human with the right to take the life of the person even with the consent of the individual in pain.

The earliest case of euthanasia reported, involved a doctor who assisted a woman suffering from Alzheimer’s disease end her own life (Burger, 10). Initially, this particular doctor was arrested and charged for murder as a result of the woman’s death. After lengthy court proceedings, the case was dropped because essentially, there was no state law expressly prohibiting assisted suicides. The doctor was acquitted. However, this was not the right thing for the doctor to do this as this was killing and it is not any different from murder.

In as much as societal policies are based on what is deemed morally right, the lack of consensus in defining exactly what that means renders many problems to human services. Euthanasia is no exception because just like many other human services, the issue of morality hinders a common understanding of how and when to permit it, if at all. Moral observations or evaluations of euthanasia as a valid intervention provided under legal authority by professionals such as doctors, has thus been crippled by the lack of common ground or agreement concerning its appropriateness and even legality. There is also no agreed upon position as to whether euthanasia is a preferred intervention or even a compensatory strategy allowing the preferential treatment of those members of society under specific duress. The morality in the society prohibits taking another person life. Therefore, literally there should be no such contrivances on the issue of morality in the medical field.

The disturbing questions regarding euthanasia as a valid intervention or valid human service emanate from the moral perspective. Essentially, there is no basis or criteria to know exactly who is to be assisted in committing voluntary suicide. For instance, no agreeable position has been reached on the basis for the allowable criteria, such as age, financial considerations, and life expectancy and/or health complications (Burger, 26-27). Therefore, it is observable that euthanasia is not right in any territory.

The aspects of culture and religion also come into play when deciding on whether to allow or disallow its use or practice as part of legalized human services acceptable to society as a whole. In any event, even if it were to be allowed/legally adopted in masses, euthanasia would be subjected not only to a state vote, but also to a federal debate as well. The religion and most cultures are against the practice of euthanasia as they have the philosophy that only God can take life.

Euthanasia is thus a polarizing issue in society with no precise or general agreement among people. This is because for instance, “there were 72% of Americans who supported its use” a study conducted in 2002 by Gallup, (Burger, 34). In general, many states have no agreed position on euthanasia or its application. However, there are many societies and advocacy groups dealing with Euthanasia and examples include the Hemlock Society also known as the Compassions and Choices group. Others who endorse the right to voluntarily die include the states of Montana, in particular, Oregon and Washington where they define it as “Physician Aid in Dying/PAD” (Burger, 12). The peculiar fact in this PAD, is that the specified physician should only offer the means while the patient actually self-administers the “aid to die” voluntarily. When not all the people in the society agree upon an issue then it should not become legal.

In conclusion, Euthanasia is one of these challenging interventions or strategies that have found no consensus either legally or professionally. The disturbing questions regarding euthanasia as a valid/legal intervention or human service, emanate from the moral perspective. In basic terms, there is no basis or criteria to know exactly who is to be assisted in committing voluntary suicide. Additionally, no agreeable position has been reached on the basis for the allowable criteria, whether in terms of age, financial considerations, health condition or even life expectancy. In general, many states have no agreed position on euthanasia or its application. Therefore, euthanasia should not be legal but should be illegal and anyone caught doing it should be penalized as evidenced by the research.

Works Cited

"BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Ethics Of Euthanasia - Introduction." Bbc.Co.Uk, 2017, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/introduction.shtml.

Burger, William R. Human services in contemporary America. Cengage Learning, 2013.