Moral Implications and Why Active Euthanasia Should not be legalized.
There are currently two classifications of Euthanasia. One of the classifications of euthanasia is considered voluntary euthanasia. Under voluntary euthanasia, the individual gives his or her own personal consent regarding pursuing euthanasia on himself or herself. The key factor here is that the individual who wishes to die can make the decision for himself or herself. Once the individual is not capable of doing so, then euthanasia becomes involuntary, wherein authorized individuals like members of the family can decide on the application of euthanasia to a person who is already incapable of making such decision, like a person who is already in a comatose or a person who is too old, weak and feeble and is only living off life support system.
There are two ways on how to do euthanasia, and it is through active and passive means. Both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can be done through either active or passive euthanasia. In active euthanasia, the person takes a lethal substance geared at killing the individual, while in passive euthanasia, the idea is to allow the body to die naturally by withdrawing medicines that are used for treatment, not allowing other medical procedures and intervention and eventually removing the life support system. Regardless of the cases of passive, active, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, euthanasia, as a practice of killing individuals, is still very controversial issue because of the fact that many people are still arguing for or against this issue.
Euthanasia has featured cases of physician misconduct. Often, this is found in hospitals inside countries that are very favourable to euthanasia. One of these countries is the Netherland, which legalized euthanasia. As a result of the legalization of euthanasia in Netherlands, the physicians in this country is more prone and more vulnerable to physician misconduct involved in the act of committing euthanasia, especially in consideration to the many different predicaments surrounding the request for euthanasia and if all of these euthanasia acts are done with real consent and genuine intention of considering the welfare and well being of the person who is about to die, above everyone else, and not just being used as a tool by individuals to eliminate people so that they can pursue their own selfish goals. This is one of the main reasons why euthanasia has the potential to be immoral (Gorsuch 135). Non-consensual killing have become more acceptable - as they surely have in Netherlands, where the government has sough to justify them as necessity (Gorsuch 135).
Many Physicians in Netherlands do not follow the process of deciding if the patient is necessary for active euthanasia. One of the sources of physician misconduct in Netherlands when it comes to euthanasia is the problem of due process when it comes to undertaking euthanasia. Some people accept the concept and act of euthanasia because they found the process acceptable since the process protects the interest of the patient at all times. But when this process is not followed, there is also the chance that the rights of the patient are being violated. Worse, the doctor or physician attending to this practice is guilty of misconduct and malpractice. The breach of process and procedure is more pronounced in active euthanasia since death is instantaneous and there is very little chance for the patient to be revived or to recover should other individuals or agencies intercede upon detection of possible misconduct and inappropriate and incorrect process and procedure leading to the consent and act of euthanasia. The problem of legalizing euthanasia is that it becomes common. Physicians become lax and consider this practice as one of the other common procedures inside the hospital. Because of this attitude and outlook, the physician is more inclined to not strictly follow the process and procedure of euthanasia, which will eventually make the physician more prone to committing acts of misconduct and malpractice in the undertaking of active euthanasia, as well as passive euthanasia. Those who do not agree with euthanasia believe it is because guidelines in line of euthanasia are violated (Cohen-Almagor 65).
The problem of malpractice and misconduct in the undertaking of active euthanasia is ethically wrong. This is more pronounced since this is a direct act of killing an individual, who may not want euthanasia in the first place but is subjected to such practice because physicians did not exercise prudence and care in the observation of the correct process and procedure in the obtaining of the consent of the individual and in the ascertaining of whether or not the consent was obtained legally and ethically. Once euthanasia becomes a socially accepted practice, the consideration for saving the human life becomes affected since physicians can easily kill anyone since this becomes an ordinary part of the day to day job.
When this happens the life of individuals are placed at stake, especially the life of individuals who are victimized by the presence of legalized euthanasia and the lax behavior of physicians in safeguarding the processes and procedures necessary for euthanasia.
The physicians moral view may alter the decision of euthanizing a patient. Doctors and physicians have a great influence on the patient. Having physicians and doctors who are pro-euthanasia increase the chances that the patients will also go for euthanasia, especially if the doctors managed to influence the patient. It is important that even if euthanasia is accepted or not, doctors should keep their own point of view for themselves and refrain from influencing the patients decision regarding euthanasia because euthanasia is a matter of life and death, literally. If physicians consciously try to convince or influence the patient to favor euthanasia just because the physicians moral point of view is in support of this belief, then at some degree, the physician is guilty of taking the patients life.
A physicians moral value and view shouldnt decide if a person is necessary to be euthanized. The physician should refrain not only from influencing the patient but also refrain from having his or her own personal opinion, moral standpoint and point of view on euthanasia influence the decision on euthanasia that the medical institution or the family and friends of the patient would make. This is also immoral since the physician is using his or her medical authority to influence a decision to which he or she does not have any moral authority to do so. The decision of taking or preserving life is not a medical decision but a moral and ethical decision.
Because of the nature of euthanasia (its condition, it practices, perspectives and resultimpact in the society), it is not surprising that individuals and organizations are intent on using this tool to kill people and taking human life legally, using euthanasia as a tool for repression and oppression and as a new method for a new style of genocide. Killing through euthanasia can be targeted towards a specific group of people.
Euthanasia can be used to target and eliminate a particular group of people. While this maybe something akin to conspiracy theory, in consideration to the extent of how people in the past resorted to the most evil and vile of methods to exterminate people by race or ethnicity the thought of using euthanasia as a new form of eliminating people based on race and ethnicity is not surprising. Considering the fact that there are groups of people by race or by ethnicity that outnumber other groups, it is possible that euthanasia can be the new tool for race or ethnic cleansing.
The growth of a particular race can be quelled and can be controlled through the use of euthanasia, especially if this particular racial group depends on professionals belonging in other racial group for their medical needs. Also, governments may support the move for euthanasia (and the reckless practice of this) in other countries, with the agenda of using the practice of euthanasia inside the country to kill this particular race. For example, the government representing Race A can encourage the government of Race B to legalize euthanasia in exchange for political and economic and financial support. The real agenda of Race A is to kill as many people belonging in Race B as possible, without the risk of being the one to be blamed in the end.
Like the case of racial groups, particular ethnic groups can also be targeted by euthanasia. For example, the spread of a particular serious ailment inside a community that is predominantly inhabited by a particular ethnic group can be addressed by the use of euthanasia backed by medical justifications like preventing more contact and increased spread of disease. The disease being incurable at the moment etc, when all along the real intention was to find a legal way possible to decimate the population of a particular ethnic group.
Physicians who have grudge against gangs and gang members (for example, a violent history with this group) may try to get back to this group by encouraging the use and practice of euthanasia on these patients, giving the doctorphysician a certain feeling of being able to kill these people in return. While this type of possibility maybe a highly isolated case and situations necessary for this pattern is highly improbable to happen in a continued basis (since not all of the gang members are mortally injured or have a deadly disease or is brought to the same hospital and same doctor for the acts of euthanasia against the gang members to be committed by just one doctor with a grudge), the point is that with the legalization of euthanasia, individuals are presented with another option that they can exploit, which they can use to kill people and can increase death and mortality rate.
Ones life seems more important than the other. Another important consideration with regards to euthanasia is that there would be unfair and unequal appraisal of the value of life of different individuals, with those who are being saved from euthanasia (with or without the influence of the physician) being viewed as more important compared to the lives of those who are not spared from euthanasia, which can be viewed as a life that is not as valuable. Therefore, the physician can euthanize a person who seems less important to give space to person who seems to be more important. With the consciousness that there are more and less important lives, the doctors and physicians are again vulnerable to committing moral crimes. To make room for more important lives, they might pursue the use of euthanasia to eliminate the life of individuals whom they consider as less important. Often, the idea or concept of whose life is more important is hinged on the financial capability as well as power and influence of the individual in question. Profiteering physicians may try to accommodate a patient who is rich and well connected, and would not think twice of euthanizing a poor patient so that resources are made available to take care of the well to do patient. This makes euthanasia a tool that creates the demarcation line that distinguishes two lives the more important and the less important, the poor and rich, the influential and the ordinary.
Euthanasia aids in the act of people committing suicide. This is not morally acceptable. Euthanasia should be limited to those who are terminally ill or in pain. Once euthanasia is legalized and becomes an accepted aspect of human life, people may use it to assist their own acts of suicide, which is an immoral act and is made possible because of the presence of euthanasia in the first place. Today, there are already figures supporting euthanasia and suicide in several countries (Gorsuch 135). Within Australia...voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide collectively represent approximately 1.8 percent of all deaths...voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide accounted for 2.2 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands in 19990, and 2.7 percent of all deaths there in 1995 (Gorsuch 135).
Those who wants to commit suicide, but dont have the courage, will be able to do so through euthanasia. Once euthanasia is legalized, the idea that euthanasia is legal can given physicians the moral security that it is not wrong. They can use it to assist individuals who are just intent on committing suicide. Euthanasia can only be used as a tool for suicide with the consent and cooperation of a medical professional. If physicians do not have enough reason for euthanasia, the doctor or physician may think twice of doing it, for legal implications. But not all physicians will think in this same way. Those who have more personal reasons to do otherwise are empowered by the legalization of euthanasia to commit this sin and to assist in the suicide attempt of the individual. With this, the physician that assisted the individual in using euthanasia as a tool for suicide is just as guilty in killing the individual.
Many people, who want to commit suicide, fortunately couldnt commit suicide because they were too scared. Often, suicidal people are scared to take their own life. However, with the presence of doctors and physicians who can help them, the deterrent factors preventing suicide is lesser. Euthanasia can facilitate suicide and scared individuals can simply ask the assistance of the doctor, and giving the physician sufficient reason to cooperate, the suicidal individual will eventually be able to commit suicide despite being scared because of the role of the physician in the process.
More people will go to a physician to assistant suicide. Euthanasia will make doctors the main targets of suicidal people, who will bribe doctors just to assist them to commit suicide which puts the physicians in a more serious moral situation. People who are suicidal will know that the doctors can help them. The doctors maybe tempted to use this power as leverage for financial or in-kind compensation, while suicidal individuals are not given the correct counselling that they need and are instead pushed deeper into the thinking of committing suicide because of what the physician stands to gain in this arrangement.
It is bad enough that people who cannot be cured by medicine or those who are beyond curable state causes deaths that medicine cannot prevent from happening or delay from happening. With euthanasia, there is the possibility that the cases of deaths of non-ill individuals will increase because of the increase of suicide cases that are assisted by physicians and are undertaken through the practice of euthanasia (Gorsuch 135). As voluntary assisted suicide and euthanasia become more common, so too will non-consensual killing due to abuse, mistake or coercion (Gorsuch 135).
Euthanasia is a process of killing someone, which many people find a task too difficult (LaFollette 55). All of these arguments provide the framework that supports the idea that euthanasia should not be legalized because it presents a set of repercussions which will eventually be about death and killing, deaths of people who should not be dead in the first place, death as a result of suicide, and deaths as a result of racial and ethnic antagonism. If euthanasia can increase the tendencies of unnatural and preventable deaths and can give more power to people to kill and will contribute to the distortion of moral personal values, physicians and non-physicians alike. There are two important lines of thoughts to be considered in the analysis of why euthanasia should not be allowed to be legalized. First, active euthanasia, in particular, should not be legalized for it will bring forth numerous of unnecessary killing and second, due to unnecessary killing of euthanasia, the legalization of active euthanasia can lead to genocide and murderous act. This has the potential to be used as a tool to legally murder and kill not just select individuals, but also groups based on race and ethnicity and other socio-political alignment of the group and its members.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment