Active Euthanasia Since The Health Care example essay topic

Euthanasia is one of society's most popular debated moral issues. It is an issue of the courts for quite a long time, questioning the ethics and morality of the issue. It is an ongoing circle that does not considers our right, or the victim's right, to freedom. It takes a large sum out of the pocket books of American taxpayers and should be finished.

I believe that euthanasia is only debated and kept on the political agenda to keep the courts busy. The vast majority of the population is in favor of euthanasia. However, their elected candidates don't represent their views. Thus eliminating their power of democracy and right to freedom.

In this essay I will argue that euthanasia is not a concern of religious ethics but rather an entitlement of freedom. Those who oppose the practice of euthanasia argue that helping the terminally ill bring about their own deaths, or allowing them to determine the how and when, is not only inhumane, but is also an act of "playing God". This may be true, assuming that one believes in God. However, looking at the case at hand logically, one could put forward this counter argument: if it is the case that God is "I AM THAT I AM " (Bible, Exodus 3: 14), it then follows that God is everything.

If God were everything or controls everything, then he would not only be or control disease but also death. If it is the purpose of disease to bring about death, then the actions or the will of God would be reflected by the resulting death that comes about through disease. So if the infected person chose to not allow the disease to take its course, then would that person not be playing God, or interfering with the will of God? If the person chose to partake in the action of euthanasia, could this action not be considered an act of aiding or following the wishes of God's will?

Freedom activists view euthanasia in a very different way. They believe that everyone has the right to choose how they live and die. Euthanasia allows the people, who are simply living to die, to maintain dignity by accelerating their own end. Thus letting them die in peace, rather than suffering to the end. It eliminates the own as well as others perception of dying to be a burden, physically and financially. Each person has value and is worthy of respect, has basic rights and freedoms and the power to control his or her destiny.

Victims in the advanced stages of terminal illness will have limited muscle control and experience excruciating and unrelenting pain. Not everyone dies well. A small portion of terminal pain cannot be fully controlled, even with the best care. Other distressing symptoms such as sickness, incontinence or breathlessness cannot always be relieved. For health care workers, the issue of the right to die is most prominent when a patient in their care (1) is terminally ill, (2) is in intense pain, and (3) voluntarily chooses to end his life to escape prolonged suffering. In these cases, there are several theoretical options open to the health care worker.

First, the worker can ignore the patient's request and care can continue as usual. Second, the worker can discontinue providing life-sustaining treatment to the patient, and thus allow him to die more quickly. This option is called passive euthanasia since it brings on death through nonintervention. Third, the health care worker can provide the patient with the means of taking his own life, such as a lethal dose of a drug. This practice is called assisted suicide, since it is the patient, and not technically the health care worker, who administers the drug. Finally, the health care worker can take active measures to end the patient's life, such as by directly administering a lethal dose of a drug.

This practice is called active euthanasia since the health care worker's action is the direct cause of the patient's death. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known.

In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and would clearly count as murder. If we live in a free nation, then one should be able to take their own life if they will eventually die anyways. Especially if they are in extensive pain and the suffering will only continue if they proceed to live.

So if it is established that they will die they should exercise their freedom and they should be allowed to die early. Euthanasia is more a question of freedom rather than an ethical question of God.