Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia: Balancing Individual Rights and Community Values

Name Institutional affiliations Date Communal and personal ethical factors surrounding euthanasia Euthanasia has brought about debates on whether it should be legalized or not. The dilemma has led t ethical issues whereby both the individual and the community differ on the discussion. The medical practitioners' primary goal is to prevent deaths, which makes euthanasia very controversial. The debate lies in the human rights activists and the religious opponents, and they all have disagreed on the issue of euthanasia. Human rights activists argue that it is wrong to continue the suffering of people who do not have any hope of recovery from a condition. Additionally, they say that some people wish to die peacefully than to live a life of pain. Such people give the go-ahead for the medical practitioners to end their lives and reduce their agony and the agony the family members may be undergoing concerning their underlying conditions (Banović, Turanjanin, and Miloradović, 2017). These groups argue that people’s wishes should be respected and fulfilled without much debate. People should be left to die in dignity and without pain, and since each one has their bodies, they should e allowed to do what they want with their bodies. Such a kind of response reflects what a civilized society should be like, and people should not be left to live longer than they would wish because it would violate personal freedom and human rights (Emina, 2021). These people think that it is immoral, and refusal of euthanasia translates to immorality in forcing people to continue living in suffering and pain. On the other hand, religious opponents argue that life is God-given and only God should have the mandate to end that life. The religious group believes that everything happens for a reason, and even suffering should not be questioned since it is God's will. The idea of mercy killing is terrible, and it is translated as murder in disguise. With this kind of understanding, they argue that if euthanasia were legalized, people would abuse it, and in most cases, people who do not deserve to die would be dying (Banović, Turanjanin, and Miloradović, 2017). Additionally, these groups think that if euthanasia were legalized, the laws regulating it would be abused, and it would be very likely that many people would die unnecessarily. Medical practitioners are obliged to choose between complicated options and are forced to use their moral reasoning to solve some of these ethical issues regarding Euthanasia (Emina, 2021). It is therefore clear that the debate surrounding euthanasia would have to prolong for a longer time with all these considerations. But on the other hand, thinking critically, it would be best if one does the right thing. Euthanasia may not b legalized but under special circumstances, one ought to do choose a lesser evil a far as lives are concerned (Ruggiero, 2014). In the book critical thinking, the author suggests that in an situation that would render a conflict between an ideal and an obligation, the right thing to do would be to choose the action that would achieve greater good (Ruggiero, 2014). Kantian Ethics concerning Euthanasia Kant's philosophies were that certain types of actions were prohibited even in instances that would bring any form of happiness. His philosophies were that there was no wrong thing that would justify any deed as long as it was not acceptable (Stellino, 2