Terminal illnesses cause unbearable pain and suffering to individuals. After the diagnosis process, some patients are found to have health conditions that have no cure and are subject to agony. In such scenarios, an individual, relatives, and the doctor may decide to analyze the chances of survival and the anguish associated with the disorder. They then make a firm agreement to save the patient from misery. Assisting clients in ending their lives is helpful both to the family and the victim (Simmons, 2018). Despite the advantages of practicing assisted suicide in critical situations, some countries or people are against it, terming it unethical conduct which violates human rights. Even though some individuals view medical suicide as an illegal act, euthanasia should be allowed since it helps terminally ill persons to end their long-term suffering.
Euthanasia enables terminally ill individuals to end infinite suffering and unbearable pain. Generally, the idea of not being able to be treated makes patients have complete agony. They know very well that irrespective of the effort made to restore their status, or their lives will come to an end because of the disease. Additionally, acute sickness causes physical aches to the victims, thus making them suffer. In such cases, sick people should be allowed after they consent to be assisted by the doctor to terminate their lives (Shaw et al., 2018). The process brings an end to the constant sadness and torture they have been going through.
Furthermore, assisted suicide eliminates desperate efforts by sick persons to kill themselves. After discovering they have an incurable disorder, some patients may be tempted to end their lives to escape the painful moments associated with the condition. The desperation can make individuals engage in a hazardous process of death. Allowing euthanasia would enable people to access medical practices that enhance safe and painless death to relieve individuals of terminal diseases from endless agony. The practice will enable persons suffering from chronic illness to have limited suicidal thoughts since they know in case they need it, their request is guaranteed.
The capacity of sick individuals to make choices based on the disease condition should be allowed. Human rights should be respected, and therefore individuals suffering from untreatable sicknesses should be permitted to choose assisted suicide to end the constant torture they are going through. Terminally ill people should be given a chance to decide their fate following the current situation they are facing. Respect for autonomy is vital, and practicing it enables patients to make decisions concerning their status.
Assisted suicide also enables family members to save scarce resources. During the process of providing care to the sick individual, relatives and other concerned people would have to use the available funds to receive the services. Since the condition is permanent, continuous costs will be incurred to secure the necessary provisions needed to help keep the patient stable. The process may make the kin use more resources, leaving them with none to support their needs, and in the end, the patient ends up succumbing due to the disorder. Therefore, using medical assistance to kill individuals with chronic diseases can reduce financial pressure that would result in no gain.
Euthanasia enables terminally ill individuals to reduce stress to their loved ones. When a person is sick and the condition cannot be reversed, the whole family, including relatives, feels the pain and sadness of seeing one in a state where death is the end result. Such a situation may impact the lives of close friends, especially the children, spouses, or parents. People who are emotionally attached to the patient may end up developing other sicknesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and even mental problems due to the pressure caused by the underlying situation of their kin. To be able to avoid the effects, individuals should be allowed to willingly terminate their dear lives to free other people from depression. Assisted dying would allow the remaining members to have less tension and trauma because they will no longer be interacting with the person.
Despite the importance associated with practicing medical suicide, most people have a contrary opinion concerning the act. Some individuals view assisted death from an ethical perspective, while others argue about it based on a religious worldview. The contradiction has made the action to be considered illegal in most countries. Even though euthanasia is voluntary and agreed upon by the patient and the doctor, it is still not welcomed by several states, irrespective of the health condition of the sick person.
Medically assisted killing is considered murder in the context of religions. Practicing euthanasia is viewed as depriving a person of the right to life; therefore, it should not be allowed (Clarke et al., 2021). For example, the Islamic religion is completely against physician-assisted death, claiming that it is inhumane to kill a person. This belief has made the legalization of the act to be difficult in countries such as Iran. Similarly, other faiths do not support the practice of claiming that human beings are important and it is the creator who has the right to end life. Therefore, different convictions converge and condemn the act because it is a violation of rights.
Family members can use euthanasia as an excuse to inherit the possessions of the patient. In cases where the sick individual has wealth, the relative may choose to bribe the doctor intentionally to enable them to have the right to access wealth. Assisted suicide will act as a cover-up to blackmail society and other friends. For example, a son may choose to make a deal with the physician to provide a wrong diagnosis result to scare his father to the extent of making the decision to have assisted demise. After the parent’s life termination, the child will have the full right to own the property. Such behavior can make the noble role of medical death in stopping consistent suffering from being irrelevant and unacceptable.
Individuals having mental problems may want to use medically assisted death to evade their misery. Generally, psychological issues do not have physical pain; hence do not cause unbearable agony to the patients (Calati et al., 2021). Using euthanasia as a means implies losing life for a condition that has a resistible effect on the individual. Emotional complications can be treated and managed; therefore, applying physician-aided suicide would mean a violation of the patient’s right to life. In this case, individuals would choose to kill themselves with the help of a doctor to avoid reversible health status.
Moreover, diagnosis machines might be faulty, giving misleading test results. Physicians rely on the outcome of the equipment used to determine the nature and condition of the patient’s disorder. In case of defective analysis, the doctor will assume the scenario to be a terminal disease, thus advising the sick person and the relatives (Miziara et al., 2021). Such misinformation would prompt the decision to relieve the victim from the pain due to the health situation. Due to the fear and agony, individuals would desperately opt for euthanasia to save themselves and their families from unstoppable suffering. This will imply losing a life that would have been saved if the finding were correct.
Additionally, as a result of the professionalism and ethical conduct, some doctors may resist euthanasia and offer other practices. Majorly, patients are scared of long-term suffering from the pain associated with the illness, physicians may choose to provide alternative solutions to avert the agony and help the individual live with the condition (Riisfeldt, 2019). In most cases, the medics would suggest the application of palliative care based on their opinion and understanding of how it works. This will mean that irrespective of the person’s wish to be helped in dying, the request will be refused and a different approach induced to counter the situation.
Similarly, patients trust doctors with their health; therefore, practicing euthanasia may cause distrust. Physicians’ responsibility is to provide adequate care and protection to sick individuals; thus, assisting people to die may sound ridiculous to persons irrespective of the underlying condition. The practice would mean a violation of moral beliefs, which is against professional conduct (Fontalis et al., 2018). Increasing mistrust may cause fear amongst the public about the hospital services, which can, in turn, affect the overall perception.
Euthanasia can also be an intentional act by the doctor to obtain body organs for sale. Some physicians may be tempted to acquire party parts to sell illegally to other clients who have offered a large amount of cash. Due to greed and unethical conduct, medics may choose to give wrong information about the patient’s health status and then follow assisted suicide advice as the only option to access the required tissue for their financial gain. Therefore, many people might end up losing their lives due to the malpractice of medical professionals. This means that encouraging the act might result in deliberate deaths that benefit some individuals.
Legalizing and practicing assisted death can increase cases of suicide in society. People will tend to view losing their lives as the only remedy to their problems. Individuals may fail to focus on overcoming personal problems that are not closely related to terminal illness because they are guaranteed help if they want to die (Weiser, 2018). Prohibiting the act allows persons to restrain from thoughts and irrational actions that can end their lives.
In conclusion, assisted suicide should be practiced to enable individuals having chronic diseases to end their pain and suffering. The approach would also save the patients’ families, relatives, and friends from unending pressure and stress. Furthermore, it will enable them to limit the financial expenditure that yields no gain at the final point. Euthanasia should be exercised ethically, putting into consideration all the possible alternatives before assisting the victim to die. Therefore, physicians and kin of the patient must agree before engaging in aided dying.
References
Calati, R., Olié, E., Dassa, D., Gramaglia, C., Guillaume, S., Madeddu, F., & Courtet, P. (2021). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in psychiatric patients: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 135, 153-173. Web.
Clarke, C., Cannon, M., Skokauskas, N., & Twomey, P. (2021). The debate about physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in Ireland – Implications for psychiatry. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 79(5), 387-394. Web.
Fontalis, A., Prousali, E., & Kulkarni, K. (2018). Euthanasia and assisted dying: What is the current position and what are the key arguments informing the debate? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(11), 407-413. Web.
Miziara, I. D., & Miziara, C. S. M. G. (2021). Euthanasia in Brazil: Ethical and legal aspects. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 16, 100629. Web.
Riisfeldt, T. D. (2019). Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(2), 125-130. Web.
Shaw, D., Trachsel, M., & Elger, B. (2018). Assessment of decision-making capacity in patients requesting assisted suicide. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 213(7), 393-395. Web.
Simmons, K. M. (2018). Suicide and death with dignity. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5(2), 436-439. Web.
Weiser, J. K. (2018). The slippery slope of legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Annals of Internal Medicine, 168(9), 683. Web.