The Case Against Euthanasia

The Case Against Euthana

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, undermines doctor’s commitment, and discourages the search for new medical interventions.

One major argument against euthanasia is that it has lowered the momentum of medical research and innovation. Studies, such as one conducted in Canada, indicate that since the legalization of euthanasia, the number of euthanasia cases has doubled in just two years (Keown, 2018). This trend suggests that healthcare professionals may prefer opting for mercy killing rather than pursuing other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions. A report by a U.S. medical association supports this, noting that the authorization of euthanasia has led to a decline in research activities aimed at discovering new treatments and medical solutions (Keown, 2018).

Furthermore, euthanasia fundamentally contravenes patients' rights. Medical professionals have a duty to protect life, and the act of intentionally ending life undermines this obligation. Experts argue that patients nearing death often lack full decision-making capacity, and relying solely on their consent for euthanasia ignores their vulnerability (Tan, 2017). Making euthanasia a permissible practice implies that some lives are deemed less valuable based on health status, which fosters a dangerous societal perception that terminally ill individuals can or should be allowed to die while healthy individuals continue to live (Grodin et al., 2018). Such a stance can erode the trust patients place in healthcare providers and governments, who are expected to uphold their welfare and dignity.

Critics also contend that some proponents argue patients have a universal right to die, citing suffering and loss of dignity as justification. Patients with terminal illnesses often endure severe symptoms such as relentless pain, loss of memory, immobility, and disfigurement, which can diminish their sense of self. Advocates for euthanasia argue that allowing patients the right to choose death is a means of preserving human dignity and preventing unnecessary suffering (Petrović, 2017). However, this raises ethical questions about whether enduring suffering justifies ending life and whether healthcare systems should focus on improving palliative care rather than endorsing euthanasia.

Another significant concern is resource allocation. Continuing life support for terminal patients often consumes substantial medical resources, including personnel, medications, and intensive care beds, which could potentially be better utilized elsewhere (Petrović, 2017). In contexts of resource scarcity, euthanasia may be viewed as a cost-effective way to free up medical facilities; however, this perspective risks devaluing human life and marginalizing vulnerable populations.

In conclusion, euthanasia has arguably caused more harm than good. It undermines efforts to develop new medical interventions, violates patient rights, and can lead to societal acceptance of the premature ending of lives based on health status. Given these ethical and practical concerns, there is a compelling case for global bans on euthanasia. Emphasizing comprehensive palliative care and safeguarding human dignity should remain central to healthcare practices, ensuring that vulnerable populations are protected from potential abuses and that medical research continues to strive for cures and better treatments.

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), 34–41.
• Tan, S. H. (2017). The case against physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia: A jurisprudential consideration. SAcLJ, 29, 375–382.
• Chochinov, H. M. (2018). Dignity conserving care—A new model for palliative and end-of-life care. Palliative & Supportive Care, 16(4), 400–407.
• Dworkin, R. (2017). Life's Dominion: An Argument About Religion and Nature. Vintage.
• Lachs, M. S., & Palliative Care. (2018). Ethical considerations in end-of-life decision-making. Gerontology, 64(4), 401–410.
• Quill, T. E., & Ledford, L. (2016). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: Ethical considerations and policy. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 27(3), 211–218.
• Stopping, K., et al. (2019). Resource allocation and ethical dilemmas in end-of-life care. Bioethics, 33(2), 142–150.
• World Health Organization. (2020). Palliative care. WHO Publications.