Euthanasia

Euthanasia

I believe that Euthanasia should not be morally permissible. "Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong (MZ 63)." In my paper I will argue that euthanasia contradicts with a doctor's obligation to practice a style of medicine that cures the patient, the social acceptance of euthanasia leads to a more corrupt health care system, and that the person being killed still poses as a possible contribution to society.

Imagine waking up in a hospital only to notice your hands are missing. This event actually happened to a guy named Donald Cowart. He was burned in an automobile accident. Afterwards, Don refused treatment but do to the doctors' duty to help he was given treatment. "Charles Baxter, Don's attending physician, estimated that Don had extremely deep burns over about 65 percent of his body. His face, upper arms, torso, and legs had suffered severe third-degree burns, and both ears were virtually destroyed. His eyes were so damaged that his left eye had to be surgically removed, and he eventually lost the vision in his right eye. His fingers were burned off down to the second joint, making it impossible for him to pick up anything. The pain was tremendous, and even though he was given substantial doses of narcotic, it remained unbearable for more than a year (CP 125)." If we live in a society were euthanasia was more acceptable then Don would not be alive today. I feel like doctors have a legal obligation to serve people in need of help. A person being omitted to a hospital should feel confident that the doctors don't have to use procedures that enforce death.

Some people may say that it is cruel to ignore a severely injured victims request to end their suffering. They are referring to the patients who have terminal illnesses and the pain is so tremendous that they are giving up. The hard part is determining which diseases meet the requirements for euthanasia. Our medicine has improved, and diseases that were fatally ill in the past are not today. Every time we have a medical break through like a cure for cancer the doctors would have to make serious adjustments to their policies. "All the pro-euthanasia arguments turn on the individual case of the patient in pain, suffering at the center of an intolerable existence. They exert powerful calls on our compassion, and appeal to our pity; therefore, we assent too readily when it is claimed that such patients have a right to die as an escape from torment. So long as the right to die means no more than the right to refuse life-prolonging treatment and the right to rational suicide, I agree (MZ 83)." I would argue that it is natural for the body to feel pain, because its part of the process of healing itself. Pain is the body's way of reminding a person to take it easy until the damaged areas can be repaired. Some women experience harsh pains during their menstrual cycles, but I doubt that any doctor would agree that the pain is severe enough to be put to death. It is really difficult to determine the maximum amount of pain that gives a person the right to death.

Another reason is that a person involved in an accident does not have the mental awareness to make life or death decisions. "Many patients already feel guilty for imposing burdens on those who care for them, even when the families are to bear that burden. To provide an avenue of discharge of that guilt in a request for euthanasia is to risk putting to death a great many patients who do not wish to die (MZ 18)." People in general can't stand drastic changes in their lives. It will take time for them to adjust to new lifestyles. In Don's Case, his whole motivation to get better was driven by his desire to commit suicide. When he finally recovered he got married and received a degree in law school. So it is obvious that life does not end after a fatal injury. Doctors should continue to provide curable treatments to patients despite their wishes to die. They have a legal obligation to help people. "If permitting physicians to kill would undermine the very moral center of medicine, then almost certainly physicians should not be permitted to perform euthanasia. But how persuasive is this claim? Patients should not fear, as a consequence of permitting voluntary active euthanasia, that their physicians will substitute a lethal injection for what patients want and believe is part of their care (MZ 78).

A social acceptance of euthanasia might lessen the respect for human life. It could create a society desensitized by killing human beings almost as much as we kill plants, animals, and insects. "Any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to detrimental social consequences (MZ 81)." People would get injured and won't go to the hospital due to fear. Especially the lower class citizens whom can't afford adequate medical procedures would be subject to active or passive euthanasia. Whenever these citizens got severely ill they would be helpless and

...