Euthanasia is a very old issue, its roots can be traced back to the
Classical era. Throughout the history,
this term has been understood and interpreted in different ways. In our modern
era this issue started to gain more recognition even more it is considered one
of the most controversial issues ever, and this due to the enhancement that
health care domain has known lately, mainly improvements of medicine. People still
confused about this act, whether it should be authorized or banned by the law.
For some euthanasia can stand as a measure by which we can tell if a particular
community enjoys individual rights, and autonomy or not at all, that is to say,
one has the right to decide for his/her own destiny. As well as, it is the act of having pity for
people who are dying from terminal illness and therefore it is a doctor’s duty
to end their suffering. As for those who are against euthanasia claim that the
term euthanasia is an indirect expression that is substituted for “killing”,
hence, euthanasia means killing. In addition to this they consider euthanasia
as a violation of human life, not only this but also it is an evil act against
human dignity. Now the difficulty in the issue lies in the idea that autonomy
and individual rights must be encouraged so that one can take decisions about
his/her own life and death with no restrictions, and that right to life must be
preserved.
Additionally what is very striking in this debate is that both proponents
and opponents of euthanasia use the same arguments, yet the conclusion that can
be drawn from each argument is not the same, their meanings differ. Such as the
argument of “human dignity”, opponents of euthanasia argue that this act is a
violation of human dignity and it is the same as killing. Meanwhile, those who
support euthanasia claim that by permitting this act we would be able preserve
human dignity and this through helping the patient or the person who is with a
terminal or pre-terminal illness to die in peace and stop their suffering.
Euthanasia’s proponents went too far with their arguments and stated
that this matter is private and no one has the right to interfere, it is up to
the patient to decide when , how, and where to die, with the doctor’s aid . Besides
it is immoral to force a patient to continue living with unbearable pain and
suffering. Clearly, they have forgotten that we live in an interdependent
society, and such acts would harm the whole society physically and spiritually
speaking. Namely, people would start belittling the value of life; respect for
life would fade away. Under these circumstances, patients would think of
themselves as a heavy weight being carried upon the shoulders of their
families, friends and society. And the only thing left to be done is to undergo
the process of euthanasia. Therefore, every terminally ill patient would feel
the pressure to do it even though he/she doesn’t wish to, which would make of
it as a rule or norm that must be followed by every patient ( terminally ill
patients). Back again to medicine,
research show that only few cases for about 5% of the people with a terminal or pre-terminal
disease their pain could not be subsided with drug treatment.
So I call for more efforts to be done in this regard and for more
financial support to help ease the patient pain and therefore help them to die with
dignity. For that I would say that what
we truly need to do is to present euthanasia as an alternative and not as a
necessary thing in case the patient is not content with the medical treatment.
NB: this piece of work has been done as dedication for all the people
who are suffering throughout the world whatever their religious references are: Muslims,
Christians, Buddhists and the list goes on. Not forgeting to mention people who
are fit God bless you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment