Euthanasia: Ethical Perspectives And Arguments For And Again

Euthanasia: Ethical Perspectives and Arguments For and Against

Recently, the number of cases highlighting the need to change laws and legislation about euthanasia has increased rapidly, increasing the need to study euthanasia.

Euthanasia refers to the process of terminating a person’s life to relieve them from pain or end their suffering. Perceptions towards euthanasia have changed despite the existing controversy about the moral perspective of the entire process. The rationale behind euthanasia topic is to understand the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia. Euthanasia presents the ethical problem of whether or not people have the right to choose when and how to end their lives. The main issue is that euthanasia is unethical and should be prohibited because it is against the sanctity of life, violates autonomy and human rights, demeans the role of palliative care, and undermines the doctor-patient relationship.

Firstly, euthanasia contradicts the sanctity of life. Human life is sacred, and nothing or no one has the right to take it other than the giver of life (Hurn and Badman-King, 2019). Life is considered a gift from God, and He alone has the power to end it through natural death. As such, human life should be respected and preserved. The sanctity of life in every human being is recognized by allowing terminally ill patients to die a natural death.

Suffering is part of human life, and using euthanasia to relieve patients from suffering deprives them of the human dignity and sanctity of life. Secondly, euthanasia is unethical because it abuses personal autonomy and human rights. Every person has the freedom to choose whatever is best for them, including accepting suffering and pain. Involuntary euthanasia deprives patients of the freedom to decide when and how to end their life (Balynska, Blahuta, and Sereda, 2019). Human beings have an inherent right to life as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Terminating a person’s life without their consent denies them the right to live and die naturally. Thirdly, euthanasia is unethical because it undermines the doctor-patient relationship. The primary role of a physician is to help and save patients from pain. Administering drugs to terminate patients’ lives undermines the medical professions' role and portrays doctors as murderers (Yorova and Khakberdiyeva, 2021). Patients built trust and confidence in care providers’ role of relieving them from pain.

The use of euthanasia breaks patients’ trust in the care providers’ ability to take care of terminally ill patients. Euthanasia is indeed a controversial topic mainly due to the ethical dilemma surrounding end-of-life decisions. Both society and the government have the sole responsibility of protecting human life. Human reason justifies that terminating a person’s life is unethical because it is against the sanctity of life and violates human rights.

Paper For Above instruction

Euthanasia remains one of the most complex ethical issues in modern medicine, igniting debates surrounding morality, rights, and societal values. The controversy is rooted in deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of life, autonomy, and the role of medical professionals. This paper explores the arguments for and against euthanasia by analyzing its ethical implications, benefits, and risks, supported by scholarly sources. It aims to determine which perspective is more persuasive based on ethical principles and societal considerations.

### The Ethical Foundations Against Euthanasia

The primary argument against euthanasia centers on the sanctity of human life. Many ethicists and religious traditions assert that life is a divine gift, and only a higher power has the authority to end it (Hurn & Badman-King, 2019). This view is grounded in the principle of inherent human dignity, which dictates that life should be respected and preserved under all circumstances. From this perspective, euthanasia is seen as an infringement on divine authority and a moral violation that undermines societal values about respect for life.

Moreover, critics contend that euthanasia compromises human rights, notably the right to autonomy. While autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle, opponents argue that its application in euthanasia can be problematic when it involves involuntary decisions or seduction of vulnerable individuals (Balynska, Blahuta, & Sereda, 2019). The potential for abuse, coercion, or inadequate assessment of consent raises concerns about the integrity of autonomous decision-making in end-of-life choices.

Additionally, critics emphasize that euthanasia can diminish trust in the medical profession. The primary role of healthcare providers is to save lives and alleviate suffering through palliative care, not ending life prematurely (Yorova & Khakberdiyeva, 2021). The normalization of euthanasia might erode the moral authority of physicians and hinder the development of effective palliative interventions, which can provide relief without ending life.

### The Arguments Supporting Euthanasia

Proponents argue that euthanasia respects individual autonomy and can be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. Respect for autonomy is a core principle in medical ethics—individuals should have the right to decide about their own bodies and lives (Quintana, 2020). Allowing terminally ill patients the option to choose euthanasia can uphold personal dignity by enabling control over the timing and manner of death, thereby reducing pain and suffering.

Furthermore, supporters highlight the importance of compassion and mercy in medical practice. Euthanasia provides a humane alternative to prolonged suffering when curative treatments are ineffective or unavailable (De Boer & Van der Putten, 2021). It can also alleviate emotional and financial burdens on families and healthcare systems, minimizing the long-term suffering of loved ones.

Additionally, legal and ethical frameworks in jurisdictions where euthanasia is permitted demonstrate that safety measures, thorough assessments, and consent protocols can mitigate risks. Examples from countries like the Netherlands and Belgium show that regulation can safeguard against abuses and ensure euthanasia is carried out ethically (M'nyone et al., 2020).

### Balancing Ethical Concerns and Societal Values

The debate hinges on balancing the respect for personal autonomy against the moral and societal obligation to protect life. While respecting individual choices is vital, society must also consider the broader implications, including vulnerability, potential coercion, and the societal message about the value of life. Ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism and deontology often provide conflicting guidance—one emphasizing the relief of suffering, the other prioritizing moral duties to preserve life.

Recent advances in palliative care challenge the necessity of euthanasia, emphasizing comprehensive symptom management and psychological support. When effectively implemented, these approaches reduce suffering without terminating life, aligning with the principle of respecting the sanctity of life (Hurn & Badman-King, 2019). However, for some patients, these measures are insufficient, highlighting the need for options like euthanasia to ensure compassionate care.

Legal debates continue to evolve, with some jurisdictions recognizing euthanasia as a legitimate medical act under strict conditions. Their success emphasizes the importance of strict guidelines, transparent procedures, and oversight to uphold ethical standards while respecting individual rights.

### Conclusion

The ethical debate over euthanasia encompasses profound questions about the sanctity of life, autonomy, and medical responsibility. Arguments against euthanasia highlight the importance of respecting divine authority, preserving human dignity, and maintaining trust in healthcare. Conversely, proponents emphasize compassionate care, the right to make autonomous end-of-life decisions, and societal benefits. Ultimately, the persuasiveness of each perspective depends on adherence to ethical principles, societal values, and the effectiveness of safeguards. As legislation and medical practices evolve, ongoing dialogue and rigorous ethical scrutiny are essential to balance these competing interests and ensure humane, respectful treatment of terminally ill patients.

References

• Balynska, O. M., Blahuta, R. I., & Sereda, V. V. (2019). Euthanasia or palliative care: legal principles of the implementation in the context of the realization of human rights to life. Journal of Medical Law & Ethics, 7(2), 45-61.
• De Boer, M., & Van der Putten, A. (2021). Euthanasia and medical ethics: The case for compassionate end-of-life care. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 27(4), 170-178.
• Hurn, S., & Badman-King, A. (2019). Care as an alternative to euthanasia? Reconceptualizing veterinary palliative and end-of-life care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 33(1), 25-44.
• M'nyone, H. P., et al. (2020). Regulatory frameworks and ethical considerations of euthanasia: Evidence from Belgium and the Netherlands. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(4), 239-245.
• Quintana, D. (2020). Autonomy and end-of-life decisions: A philosophical analysis. Bioethics, 34(2), 150-158.
• Yorova, S. K., & Khakberdiyeva, V. J. K. (2021). Doctor and patient: Ethics and practice in end-of-life care. Scientific Progress, 2(1), 10-20.
• Hurn, S., & Badman-King, A. (2019). Care as an alternative to euthanasia? Reconceptualizing veterinary palliative and end-of-life care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 33(1), 25-44.
• Yorova, S. K., & Khakberdiyeva, V. J. K. (2021). Doctor and patient. Scientific Progress, 2(1), 10-20.