Last Name 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Number

Course

Date

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a medical process that involves terminating the life of a patient suffering

from a chronic disease that when, however left would succumb to the illness eventually (Keown

21). There are two forms of euthanasia: active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is

when a patient is allowed to die naturally by withdrawing or withholding medication, water, and

diet. According to law and the court justice system, passive euthanasia usually is legal (Paterson

32). Such decisions are based on the facts of specific cases. Despite the differences in the

definition, both active and passive euthanasia has the same process with the same results.

On the other hand, active euthanasia is also known as physician-assisted death (Steinbock

54). It is when the life of an ill person is intentionally ended through unnatural means. Usually,

the process involves fatal inoculation of prescribed medicine. However, there are additional

methods such as depriving the patient of oxygen. The topic about euthanasia has significantly

created a controversial issue whenever an individual view it on legal, religious, and healthcare

basis. Such is because the act is an easy method of culminating a patient’s life, and some of the

patient’s relations might not agree with the process.

The difference in opinions on euthanizing a patient usually creates conflicts between

family members. There are numerous predicaments that emanates from the topic of euthanasia as

most legal facilities regard the process as suicide (Paterson 45). Patients who opt for the process

are concluded to have committed suicide, whereas those who performed it are concluded to have
 Last Name 2

committed murder. Also, the debate has taken center stage in the society as different people have

distinct views regarding the process. For instance, some people wonder if it is legal to terminate

the life of an ill person or a family member that is in anguish. Also, they wonder if the process is

different from killing someone. As such, the argument is on whether it is right for someone to

decide by themselves to terminate the life of a patient without an individual’s consent (Steinbock

581).

There are some core ethical and legal factors that surround the process of euthanasia. As

such, the permissible subject surrounding euthanasia is advance commands and leaving wills

with other individuals. Occasionally with these incentives, the language applied contributes to

misunderstanding, thus compelling doctors to make their clarification (Keown 77). Also, a legal

issue is in the case study of euthanasia as the argument is on why a parent would choose to end

the life of a child when the child would have fought the illness much longer. Parents and

guardians have the freedom to make decisions concerning their children health care. However,

such should not mean that clinicians and parents should ignore the children from deliberations

and making resolutions concerning their healthcare and livelihood. In the state of Indiana, a law

was passed that allowed persons with terminal illnesses to meet specific qualifications before

making a request to a medical professional for medication that the person may self-inscribe to

end a patient’s life (De Lima 11). The law also postulates the specific qualifications a clinician

must have to recommend the treatment to an individual.

In addition, it excludes an insurer from repudiating compensation of benefits under a life

protection plan based on a suicide section in the life indemnification plan (Keown 71). As a

result, compensations must be paid to the insured’s family by the insurer provided the demise of

the indemnified was as a result of medicinal assistance in dying. However, the law institutes a
 Last Name 3

Level 1 felony if an individual: intentionally or knowingly of exercises unjustifiable influence on

an individual to request for a prescription to terminate the life of an individual or terminate a

request for a prescription to end the life of a patient. Secondly, the law also establishes Level 1

felony an individual without the authorization of the patient, knowingly forges, conceals,

destroys, or alters a request for a prescription to cause a patient’s death (Paterson 21).

The moral matters that surround euthanasia are the people who decides on whether an

individual ought to undergo the process or not, whether it is principled or unprincipled. Also, the

ethical issues question the circumstances in which the process is justifiable and whether the

process is passive or active or involuntary or voluntary (Lundberg 42). As such, it is vital to

employ the skills of extremely trained professionals, infirmary beds, equipment, and

prescriptions towards the patients who wish to live than the ones who do not. Despite all these

factors, only the ill individual understands how they feel, how the responsive and physical pain

of sickness, and extended passing influences the quality of their life.

There are several controversial cases surrounding the process of euthanasia. For instance,

a nine-year-old who was established with cystic fibrosis and their blood relatives concurred for

them to have active euthanasia (Steinbock 582). The parents consented for the process as they

did not want to further the treatment because a medical professional assumed that it would be

healthier for the child. Form the case study, begs both ethical and legal questions as to why a

clinician would be advocating for the death of a child when they may perhaps have battled off

the illness much longer. As a result of the recommendation from the clinician the child’s parents

were also affected. The parents suffered traumatic grief as they watched their child pass. In most

occasions, the patient’s family members always tend to blame themselves for not being able to
 Last Name 4

reverse the process once they realize that their relationship would have lived a little bit longer if

the parents had not consented the process.

However, irrespective of all the controversies around the process, some countries have

advocated for the legalization of euthanasia. However, the legalization of the medical process

has faced a myriad of distinctive impacts which are positive and negative. The legalization of

euthanasia has been a topic of debate since the start of modern medicine. Legalization of

euthanasia will allow the suffering patients to get their final wish finally (Griffiths, Weyers, and

Adams 23). I believe in the legalization of euthanasia to help those who are suffering and help

them pass on. As such, I support this process because I believe every individual has the freedom

to do whatever they want with their body. The legalization of euthanasia, however, comes with

its positive and negative impacts. The legalization of the process would lead to numerous deaths

of individuals facing depression and those who are unwillingly euthanized. According to

research carried out, about 1 out of 10 of the cancer deaths is caused by euthanasia — such

shows how practitioners will quickly give up and take advantage of a patient’s depression (Levy

23). If doctors can get away with the unethical practices, they may come up with the idea of

euthanizing individuals as a way of escaping the burden of solving the patients’ problems.

Families may also be willing to give up as the cost of hospitals bills become a factor. Taking care

of a sick relation can prove to become a financial burden to the families thus they can opt for

euthanasia.

Additionally, the less educated and the poor minorities are the most vulnerable ones if the

process is legalized. The loss of a loved one through euthanasia will not show that the doctors are

the ones at blame. Therefore, doctors can go ahead and perform the euthanasia process without

the consent of the patients’ family. Such is attributed to the inability to pay for hospital funds and
 Last Name 5

also the ignorance of the medical practitioners who become lazy in handling a large number of

patients (Jacobs 73). As a result, the practitioners usually end up administering the medication on

the patients but later pin it on natural death. The process also denies some members of the family

the opportunity to have their last words with the patient as some of the family members are not

usually present throughout the process. Also, religious concerns have been a significant setback

in the legalization of euthanasia. Many religious individuals especially the Christians have

confidence in life as a reward and taking it away is an authority that only has its place with God

(Levy 22). The United States Catholic Bishops have actively opposed euthanasia thus making it

an uphill task for the country to legally adopt the process. Such is attributed to the significant

role religion plays in the decision-making process of the country.

On the other hand, the legalization of euthanasia also has its advantages in the long run.

The process puts an end to an individual’s suffering. In 1996 United States Court case

concerning the process of euthanasia, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the right of

an emotionally stable patient encountering an incurable disease to select a suitable and honorable

passing, rather than feel an agonizing pain in their final days was regarded as legal in the

perception of methodical freedom (Keown 21). As such, the permission to let patients end their

anguish willingly is not only vindicated but also necessary in safeguarding the right to individual

and physical independence. Also, individuals in the late stages of their incurable illnesses

frequently end up incapacitated. They are usually dependent on relatives and nurses for basic

tasks such as showering, visiting the toilet, and bathing. Such can be humiliating to the patients.

Therefore, they tend to choose to be given a dignified death through euthanasia process. Giving a

dying person the chance to make decisions regarding what time and how they want to perish

allows them to take control of their existence. In addition, euthanasia also helps eliminate the
 Last Name 6

fear of financial burden. Inadequate funding for pain management and mollifying care, and

administration’s resilience on nurturing institutions has contributed to despair among the old age

(Paterson 21). As a result, the persons prefer to settle for euthanasia than spend large amounts of

money in nursing homes, yet they have a limited to live.

Many people who are dying always want to help others live as themselves they have a

limited life. They always do not want other people to suffer and go through the same suffering in

life as they did. The incurable disease can run ramped and, in most cases, will cause destruction

of the body as well as organ failure. Euthanized patients can donate their organs to other patients

to save their lives. As such, if euthanasia is still prohibited, the organs can be damaged and

infected with disease thus no one can inherit them (Jacobs 23). In addition, no one will be saved

because the state laws, society, and religion did not allow the person who wanted to be

euthanized to die peacefully. Vital organs from the euthanized patients can be preserved and

given to patients who can be saved. Moreover, the needs of the living should be prioritized more

than those who are conclusive about their fate and have decided to die.

Some factors limit the legalization of euthanasia. Some of these factors are usually

influenced by various aspects of a country. There are some areas that the government should not

be involved or influence on how people do things. Government and insurance companies should

not get involved in any way at the end of life decisions. Conversely, insurance companies may

limit the doctors’ capability to cure a dying patient as they prohibit the doctor from conducting

some procedures that may save the life of the patient (Lundberg 22). Instead, the insurance

companies may end up paying the corrupt medical professionals and bribe them to perform

euthanasia on a patient so that the company can save money. The insurance companies instil a
 Last Name 7

feeling of sickness in most people while euthanizing others as the public thinks they are saving

the patients.

Doctors have the power to save lives that would not be possible in previous years. The

ability of medical practitioners has significantly increased with the increase in technological

advancements. Doctors are not perfect and are sometimes influenced to become unethical and

unjust. As such, a wrong diagnosis might lead to the assisted suicide of a savable individual.

Doctors are trusted by the patients as well as the patients’ relations. As such, if the doctor

concludes that there is no hope, the patient’s family will concur and equally give up. The

shortage of medical staff and the doctors have to focus so much time on the patients that are

more vulnerable, and the doctor may suggest active euthanasia (De Lima 21). In some cases,

doctors bring their judgment and biasness into decision making thus making them unethical. The

use of euthanasia also is against the doctors’ sworn oath which is to protect the patients and

practice medicine ethically. Therefore, doctors should not be the only party involved in the

decision of ending the life of a patient. A doctor’s role should not be to take a person’s life, and

they should not be allowed to kill patients at their own free will.

In conclusion, euthanasia should be legalized to free patients from the agonies that their

illnesses are causing them. The process will save numerous lives and grant the person on the

verge of death their last wish. Patients want to be set free of the body that is pulling them back

and constraining them. Therefore, allowing them to be euthanized will grant them freedom from

their agony. Just like every other argument, euthanasia has its challenges, but the positive

impacts outweigh the negative impacts. As such, people with chronic illnesses should be granted

a free will to make this decision if the worst comes to worst. However, it should not be the first

solution to the problem, and it should be done with much dignity. Euthanasia must be the last
 Last Name 8

option if applied at all, and only patients who have asked for it or family members to a patient

who is in a comma have agreed to it.

 Last Name 9

Works Cited

Steinbock, Bonnie. "The intentional termination of life." Applied ethics: A multicultural

approach (1979): 580-591.

Lundberg, G.D., 1988. 'It's over, Debbie'and the euthanasia debate. JAMA, 259(14), pp.2142-

2143.

Griffiths, John, Heleen Weyers, and Maurice Adams. Euthanasia and law in Europe.

Bloomsbury Publishing, 2008.

Levy, Gary. "The Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide." Canadian

Parliamentary Review 18.2 (1995): 26.

Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalization.

Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. "Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

in the United States, Canada, and Europe." Jama 316.1 (2016): 79-90.

Paterson, Craig. Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach. Routledge,

2017.

De Lima, Liliana, et al. "International association for hospice and palliative care position

statement: euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide." Journal of palliative medicine 20.1

(2017): 8-14.

Cohen, Joachim, et al. "How accurately is euthanasia reported on death certificates in a country

with legal euthanasia: a population-based study." European journal of epidemiology 33.7

(2018): 689-693.

Jacobs, Leonie, et al. "Euthanasia for broiler chickens: manual and mechanical cervical

dislocation methods." (2019).