Euthanasia: What is 'Mercy' About Mercy Killing?

Euthanasia, better known as mercy killing is another hot topic in applied ethics. Euthanasia is one topic that has generated many controversial debates from different places. It is an issue that concerns every living being. If you are alive and healthy, it is important you look at this topic and contribute to it because it is an action mostly done without the patient's consent and this is because most of the patients are in critical conditions and cannot possibly make rational decisions on whether to continue to live or die.

Credit

In ethics, it is a question of justification. A question of right or wrong. Life is sacred and should be protected at all cost. In most religions of the world, killing is bad whether 'merciful' or painfully. The idea that there is a death that is 'merciful' looks absurd if you look at it critically. But those who have argued for it maintains that it is merciful since you are doing the patient a favor by freeing him/her from pains.

Euthanasia is the license empowering a medical officer to terminate the life of a patient on account of hugeness of the suffering the patient is undergoing, his little chance of survival and the huge cost of maintaining his life. source 

So it is a question suffering, chances of survival and huge cost involved in keeping the patient alive. 

Supporters of euthanasia believe that allowing people to ‘die with dignity’ is kinder than forcing them to continue their lives with suffering.

Some believe that every patient has a right to choose when to die and that euthanasia can be safely regulated by government legislation. Some are also of the opinion that the huge sum of money involved in keeping such patient alive could be used on more important things. Like when the patient will need $1.5m monthly to keep him alive. So the calculation of how much that would be 'wasted' in a year is put into consideration and the people thus weigh the benefits of keeping the person alive or letting the person go by way of terminating such life.

The above consider the pains the patient is going through or in another instance where the patient does not even know whether he or she is alive or dead. It also look at monetary factor which could be channeled into a more productive things. 

Credit

Another set of people do not share such sentiment. They looked at life from the sacredness angle of it and God's commandment : thou shall not kill. So some have argued that we cannot kill the patient in order to kill the symptoms. 

They claim that nearly all pain can be relieved. They argued that there is no ‘right’ to be killed and there are real dangers of ‘slippery slopes’. So for them, opening the doors to voluntary euthanasia could lead to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, by giving doctors the power to decide when a patient’s life is not worth living. 

They claim that if approved or legalized everywhere, We might not be able to truly control it. 

The assumption that patients should have a right to die would impose on doctors a duty to kill, thus restricting the autonomy of the doctor.  Also, a ‘right to die’ for some people might well become a ‘duty to die’ by others, particularly those who are vulnerable or dependent upon others. source

This becomes an ethical issue that questions the rightness and wrongness of the act of terminating people's life on the assumption of reliving them from suffering. 

I am yet to see how suffering is measured. Is it by the reactions of the patient, utterances or by the doctors pure intuition. Not all pains are truly expressed and in a situation where the patient is in coma, it is not a question of suffering but money.

Now the question is, who determines who should die, why and when? The patient's consent in that kind of situation is not requested and so his life was taken without his consent. In cases where the patient requested for euthanasia, is it purely on the ground of pain or the patient simply considers the monetary aspect involved? If any of the two was considered, is it proper to carry out such 'duty'?

Credit

Can we say the patient that requested for euthanasia committed suicide or the doctor that carried out the act committed murder? We won't be far from 'truth' if we consider the commandment: thou shall not kill.

As an individual, i believe euthanasia should not be accepted or approved under any circumstance. Now my reason is not far from what the antagonists the movement said above. If euthanasia is legalized, many things might go wrong. 

My take:

We know that human beings can be funny. So a doctor might be contacted to terminate a patient's life under the pretense of suffering. This suffering can be enhanced so that it is visible to everybody that the patient in question is truly suffering.

The family may opt for euthanasia on the ground that they do not have the money to keep the person alive. Even if support comes from somewhere, the money may not be released on the ground that it should be used for something more productive. So they have the license to keep the money and let the patient go.

This may contribute to immoral acts in the community as it practically mean legalization of killing. I believe in the sacredness of life. Life is priceless and a gift from God which must be cherished by all man. 

What do you think? Do you think euthanasia is good or bad? Do yo think some pains are worst more than death? Who decides when the patient should die? What are the factors that should be considered before euthanasia is considered?

Please drop your comments below.

Thanks for reading.

Its your boy @smyle the philosopher.