Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia: Balancing Individual Rights and Community Values

Abstract

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, 2020). To this, therefore, suicide or assisted suicide is wrong by all means. Kant felt that euthanasia, like suicide, lacks respect for the people, thus undermining personhood and therefore should be avoided at all costs. Such actions do not reflect self-love, as Kant suggested. Kant said that people should not be treated as a thing, and by engaging in euthanasia, I mean that a person a thing, and the dignity of humans would be compromised. In this reference, therefore, Kant's ethical concern was that one had to do self-preservation, and the body and the mind must work together at all times (Stellino, 2020). In conclusion, Kant was not for the idea of euthanasia and advocated for the preservation of life under all circumstances and not the need to end life. In his argument, Kant meant that there was no justifiable reason that would explain any reason for the termination of life f a fellow human being (Stellino, 2020). But there could be instances that could demand the principle of double effect. The double effect principle must meet some conditions. “The good consequences are inseparable from the bad, that the good consequences outweigh the bad, and that the bad consequences are not directly intended” (P 125). With such standoff, it would therefore be advisable to do euthanasia under circumstances that would save a promising life (Ruggiero, 2014). Annotated bibliography Abakare, C. O. (2021). LEGAL, SOCIAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN EUTHANASIA. PREDESTINATION: Journal of Society and Culture, 1(2), 229-240. In the article found in the journal of society and culture, the author talks about the implications of euthanasia and the social and ethical issues associated with it. Abakare (2021) argues that significant transformation has been done in the medical fraternity. Some practices thought to be vices have been accepted in society to save and preserve lives. In his arguments, Abakare cites that the medics' sole purpose is to sustain lives at all cost, and the issue of euthanasia has brought in a lot of controversy in whether participating in would be an end to means. In comparison to abortion to euthanasia, the author cites that the former could be less appealing, but it is a legal process in many countries in Europe. On the other hand, euthanasia is viewed as an act of ending life instead of life preservation. Ethical issues surrounding euthanasia have been addressed whereby the author cites that there is usually confusion surrounding euthanasia because legally, the medical practitioners are bound (Abakare, 2021). the author notes a question, "what is one supposed to do in cases where a terminally ill patient wishes to terminate his or her life to ease the mental turmoil and financial struggle of the family members as well as end the suffering they might undergoing" (P.236). With such kinds of ethical dilemmas, the author has discussed the underlying issues that these people meet in their daily lives and make hard decisions that may find them in the wrong of the law if not well thought. The topic of moral obligation is also well discussed, and the author clearly states that life should be preserved by all means. However many people might be willing to die because of underlying issues, I believe that the medical practitioners must do all it takes to preserve life, and the thought of ending life should not cross on one’s mind. There have been cases where patients on death beds made a remarkable recovery and started living fully again. Decisions to terminate one’s life have sometimes been made, and such has landed many in the courts and mixed reactions on human rights. Some may think that it was justified, whereas others may feel that it wasn’t. To avoid such scenarios, the author suggests that euthanasia should not be a controversial issue considering that human beings should act morally in matters about other human beings' lives. But just as the author puts it, sometimes one must use common sense and act appropriately on life and death issues. Dintcho, A. D. (2020). Should Active Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible?. Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal, 5(1), 1. Dintcho (2020) directly poses the question, “Should Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible?” The article in the bioethics journal answers this question whereby the author says that, yes, euthanasia should be legalized (Dintcho, 2020). According to Dintcho (2020), preservation of life is more than "prolonging the life of one person and negatively affecting those of others" (P. 4). In this context, therefore, the author says a person should be morally upright in making decisions about life and death and make a sound judgment on when and how to assist a human being. In other words, the author says that there is no need to prolong the life of a person whose chances are slim and make their lives miserable because "an infected person equally affects many others" (P.6). Concerning the types of euthanasia, the article has clearly explained both active and passive and has advocated unbearable lives should not be prolonged because of the "Yuck...