Euthanasia

This topic is rather controversial and although there are mainly two opposing views on the matter, however the reasons for believing so are different. The definition for this notion, euthanasia is assisted suicide or murder by the aid of either drugs or the unplugging of any life support mechanisms.

One way of looking at the topic is that assisting a person to die is justified, however it is not enough support to legalise euthanasia. In this it suggests that euthanasia is not morally neutral so therefore it can be assessed as euthanasia is either morally right or wrong which is essentially the purpose of this paper. The main reasons for euthanasia being morally justified are that: the patient’s condition is extreme and cannot outweigh any benefits, pain management is not sufficient, a physician is capable of bringing relief and the patient makes an informed request. The downfall in this argument is that who is a person to decide whether or not the pain can outweigh the benefits? Another issue with this argument is that, can a patient actually make an informed request when he/she is in a position of distress and is this request actually valid? There are however other arguments in support of moral euthanasia, that is where the patient has a rational desire to die, once again the problematic issue with this claim is from a religious point of view in that God has given life so how can one decide to take something that is essentially not theirs to begin with but rather bestowed upon them?

The argument against euthanasia is essentially based on a religious principal, but also draws inspiration from critical engagement. The critical engagement area is mainly challenging the afore mentioned points in favour and is based on the fact that it is difficult in order to determine whether someone has actually given voluntary consent and that they is always a chance that the diagnosis was incorrect which could subsequently mean that there would actually be an unjustified killing. The religious notion is based on one of biblical references that God refrains one from killing so how can he then condone euthanasia. The three main principals is that since everything loves itself, then suicide goes against nature, since every person is part of a community if he commits suicide it will have a negative effect on society and the last point is that God gifted life to man and when one takes that away their life they go against God. The faults in these arguments are that: since not everyone follows a particular religion is it fair that they should they be bound by the same principals? Also that because God had given life to them don’t they deserve to live it the way they want and act in their best interests of avoiding pain?

I am of the opinion that euthanasia is morally unacceptable as in the Quraan God strictly forbids suicide and euthanasia is based on the same principal. Also the fact that God punishes for sin while people are still on earth so in fact this disease could be a test that we must overcome. I am also of the opinion that ones body is entrusted to them and are ordered by God to look after it until they die, naturally. The problem with my view is similar to the one above and that is since not every person is not Muslim they should not be held to the same standard. I suppose that my argument is rather hypocritical in that if I had been put in a position where I was going through a lot of pain, I cannot say that I would not take advantage of euthanasia.