With greater and greater emphasis put on managed care today, many doctors are at a financial risk when they provide treatments to patients who are in the dying process. These patients may also feel like not becoming a burden to the society at large, and choose to fulfill a duty – Euthanasia. If the person is in a coma or is brain dead, that person is no use to himself or herself, or society anymore. Euthanasia is a viable method to end an otherwise futile attempt at recovery. The family of the person being euthanized may not want their family members in pain – to suffer.
A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
The Importance of Moral Absolutes When Making Decisions About Medical Ethics Some doctors would reject this claim, arguing that moral absolutes help decision making in medical ethics. For example, the rule ‘Do not kill’ is part of the oath taken by doctors. Some doctors would agonise over a decision whether to kill a terminally ill patient who has asked to die. These doctors might then feel guilty if the family turned out to have different wishes, or if a cure was later found for the illness. Having absolute moral rules helps doctors, because they don’t have to think about the individual circumstances or worry about possible consequences that are impossible to calculate or predict.
If euthanasia appears to be a cheaper method than providing hospice care would this potentially have a negative effect on how patients who do not chose euthanasia are treated? This is an answer we do not know for certain but it should not be disregarded. Additionally, legalizing euthanasia would also diminish all hope. Most people have heard of a miracle story about a patient who had a limited amount of time left to live and made a shocking recovery. These doctors who made the prognosis of patients whom have made a shocking recovery against all odds “... [experience] the wonderful embarrassment of being proven wrong in his or her pessimistic prognosis.
Therefore, instead of active euthanasia palliative care should be considered since they do help in treatment of pain. Conclusion Active euthanasia should not be justified or legalized drug therapy reduces the pain of a patient and instead of practicing active euthanasia. Palliative care centers are present and they can alleviate pain from a patient rather than ending his or her life. Life is sacred and we all need to protect. Active euthanasia will make medical professions to turn from caregivers to killers; they should protect human life at all cost.
Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27). They should be permitted the opportunity to die with a sense of pride and dignity, not shame, pain and suffrage. To make anyone live longer against their will and is simply immoral. By denying patient the option of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide the government is vi... ... middle of paper ... ...ns. Patients should not be so medically ill that they are unable to make this decision.
Thus understood, pragmatism is a means of avoiding abuses that may occur in the process. I conclude that so long as permissive practices are restrained sufficiently to avoid injustices, it is morally both possible and desirable to resist killing while relieving pain. Here is the doubt that triggers my inquiry: I have two beliefs that are apparently at odds. The first is that we should never kill; the second, that we should always attempt to alleviate pain. The apparent conflict between these beliefs arises from the fact that death may constitute the ultimate pain relief.
It defies the worth of human lives with excuses such as medical resource shortages or unaffordable treatments when humans are supposed to be valued, disregarding physical appearance and internal health. Likewise, the method of euthanasia disturbs God’s business in life and death and the preparations He has created for us. It can lead to abuse too, which can violate the practice and turn a person’s merciful death into an intended death. For these reasons, once more, euthanasia should not be allowed.
Nonetheless, euthanasia is not a good excuse to commit murder and take the life of an innocent human being, as there are other methods to help a person. Palliative care is a physical, emotional, and spiritual care for a dying person when a cure isn’t possible. It includes a compassion and support for family and friends and is a way of using specialized medical technique to relieve their pain and make the most out of their remaining life. The focus in palliative care is not to cure the illness, as it may not be at the moment, but just to let patients live in dignity and peace before their death. Health isn’t everything in life, especially without joy and love, and this is where palliative care comes into play.
The principle of beneficence which states, “one must promote good” comes into play in this case. In accordance to beneficence the patient will not benefit from the physicians responses personally. He/she will not benefit from harming her body with more surgeries. The patient will be going against the principle non-maleficence, which states that “one must cause no harm to an individual” by causing harm to herself. In this case the physician is justified in his/her actions by discontinuing medical or surgical care to the patient because it will not it her.