Euthanasia: Beneficial or Harmful

Ryley Clark

Hauth

English Composition

27 November 2015

Euthanasia: Beneficial or Harmful

        With the technology in the present day there has been a substantial number of medical advancements to prolong an individual’s life, but with each advancement not every patient can escape the pain and suffering of a terminal illness. Since the 1900’s there has been an idea about a source of action that assist a patients wish to end one’s life from the pain and suffering. This action is known as euthanasia. By the 1900’s physicians began adapting to the idea that patients would have more say in the treatment they would receive meaning that they would need to be educated about each option and complication. With some physical illnesses a treatment may be out of question and the illness cannot be treated leaving the patient in pain with a terminal outcome. A patient who is unconscious and dependent on life support the hospital refers to the family of the individual asking for their consent on what action they are willing to take. By ending life support the patient is left to die, and with euthanasia the patient is receiving help to die. The controversy over euthanasia is based on the idea that it is helping a person die, even though suicide is strongly looked down upon in society. Euthanasia can be classified differently by each act involving ending a person’s life. A passive approach could be a physician stop trying to restart start a heart after it has stopped beating. A more aggressive act, which is considered to be most common, would be a dose of a fatal drug. The physician can either inject the drug or give it to the patient to take orally. Euthanasia is a term that is not considered a killing, even though the outcome results in death.

In article “Euthanasia Devalues Human Life and Limits Individual Freedom,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is an active organization of retired members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, argues against the legalization of euthanasia. They are passionate about the sacred right to life that God has granted them and refuse to expect any form of expediting life’s death process. By choosing to end one’s life early the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believe people fear experiencing intolerable pain and suffering, losing control over bodily functions, or lingering with severe dementia. Euthanasia to them is viewed as dying without dignity. They recognize a terminal illness and understands the result is death, but are blind sided with the idea that making the decision to escape the agony of terminal illness also results in death. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are wrong by believing that euthanasia is a barbaric human act, takes advantage of the mentally ill, takes away the right of human life, and is an inhumane ungodly procedure.

The beginning argument in the article references mental illness and the physiological effects on how a person is lead to euthanasia. “The movement to legalize euthanasia does not enhance freedom or self-determination because many of those fighting to kill themselves are depressed and need treatment or may be unduly influenced by familial, societal, or institutional pressures to end their lives” (The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believe that individuals with suicidal thoughts from a mental illness most often neglect medical treatment or therapy and rushed into the quick and easy choice of death. Out of every few patients with a terminal illness most become depressed; a condition in the brain where an individual feels sad, upset, lifeless, unwilling, and empty. The patients are

stuck in a hospital bed and go through rigorous actions to keep them alive as long as possible. These suicidal thoughts destroy a one’s mentality. Individuals that are effected result into having some sort of tunnel vision; meaning that they believe the only way to find relief is by death. A suicidal individual is treated by counseling and if need be medication, but most of the time those treatments are not enough. Meaning that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops belief that patients neglect medication and therapy is wrong, because not all treatments are enough for someone to escape the pain. Mary Elizabeth Williams, an author who supports of euthanasia writes, “When I think of a good friend who killed herself a few years ago, the one thing that gives me peace is the hope that in the end, she found a release from the mental torment that made her life unbearable” (Elizabeth). The release Williams talks about is the release from countless hours of counseling or countless amounts of pills a patient is prescribed to take. Living solely on medication and counseling just to try and give an individual a possible glimpse of mental happiness is not a way to live. The decision to want to end one’s life is not easy and hard to judge because only that person understands the pain how it really feels. Escaping from the suffering should not be used with a razor to the wrist or a gun to the head, rather a physician with a pain free lethal injection. Any one should have the choice of allowing themselves the freedom from the unbearable suffering and distress that makes them want to end their life.

A second proposition is that euthanasia promotes a narrow and distorted notion of freedom, by creating an expectation that ill individuals are helped by being influenced to choose death. The group of people who turn towards euthanasia are usually the individuals who are given a life expectancy around 6 months. An example of a terminal illness could be an individual diagnosed with ALS.  This disease takes away all of the effected person’s muscle control and their brain completely unaffected. Living life with your brain full in tact but having no control

over one’s body is unbearable. This example relates to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops articles when they argue that a form must be signed or agreed to by the individual receiving the treatment is bias. Reason being, the law believes to be bias because it is presenting that the person is able-bodied enough to accept and receive the treatment. Another idea the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops argues is that a patient may be just agreeing the source of action viewing themselves as a burden to those ones they are purely dependent on and may feel the pressure to accept death. However, when a patient is making their own decision that patient understands euthanasia is a lengthy process. The patient does not decide which action to take over night. Therefor the pressure of agreeing or disagree to assisted suicide is solely up to the individual. For example, Mars Cramer, a man that suffered through the pain of watching his wife accept the treatment of euthanasia, because of her terminal cancer. “…the patient must earnestly desire it, a resolve taken after due deliberation, and freely; there must be no prospect of recovery and, in the words of the law, the patient must be suffering unbearably” (Cramer). Euthanasia is process that is not facilitated, but rather it is taken seriously by physicians and the patient. The one receiving the treatment is thoroughly educated about source of action. Nearing the end of all the paper work and conversation about the treatment the patient gets sense of relief knowing the pain and suffering is about to end.  

...