-Essay - EuthanasiaWe share with all forms of life the certainty of death. It is natural to hope that it will come to us peacefully and without prolonged suffering or distress. At present this hope is not always realised. Because of prejudice, taboos, misunderstanding and the legal position in our society, people who have good reason to seek a medically assisted or induced death are unable to obtain it. They may have to endure periods of intolerable suffering, often with unwanted total dependency on others. Many would be relieved of anxiety about their final days if they knew that a quick and peaceful death could be available to them in such circumstances. In this exposition, I will disc ...view middle of the document...
Non-voluntary Euthanasia. Euthanasia administered to a person without consent. The term is also wrongly used as equivalent to involuntary euthanasia.Non-voluntary euthanasia is not advocated by any voluntary euthanasia society, since it would violate the basis of the voluntary euthanasia movement - freedom of choice.Involuntary Euthanasia. Medical termination of life against a person's will. This is morally indefensible and is not, in fact, euthanasia at all. All voluntary euthanasia societies are firmly and irrevocably opposed to such measures. The term is also wrongly used as an equivalent to non-voluntary euthanasia.Mercy Killing. An act of compassion, ending the life of an incurably ill suffering person without medical supervision and possibly without consent. Sometimes wrongly used as a synonym of voluntary euthanasia.Passive Euthanasia. Also known as "letting die", the term is used to refer to hastening death by withholding or withdrawing life sustaining treatment.The case for legalising voluntary euthanasia is founded in three moral principles:Personal Autonomy Freedom of choice is the hallmark of human identity. In a liberal democracy we should be free to make decisions about our own conduct, provided we do not do so to the detriment of others. Laws that restrict our freedom require justification. The question is not, "Why should voluntary euthanasia be permitted?" but, "Why should it be prohibited?". Whatever suffering or deterioration we may be prepared to accept for ourselves in the dying process, we should not deny others the right to say when they have had enough. To be taken seriously, the case against voluntary euthanasia has to establish that its acceptance would cause more harm than results from the current prohibition.Compassion for Suffering This principle is embodied in medical and nursing practice and in the Christian ethic; it is recognised to be among the primary virtues. A preoccupation with the absolute form of the sanctity of life principle, requiring that life may in no circumstances be deliberately shortened regardless of the degree of suffering or the wishes of the patient, is not compatible with compassion. The alternative of letting the patient die by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment shortens life and may do so in a cruel manner. This is regarded as sound medical practice, is legal and is endorsed by Church authorities provided the doctor does not intend to hasten death. Nevertheless it is an inevitable consequence of such a medical decision that death is hastened.Concern for Human Dignity and Quality of Life Dignity is an essentially human element in quality of life and its loss is for many the ultimate humiliation. There are few who find it easy to contemplate the irreversible loss of control over mental and/or bodily functions which can be a consequence of the ravages of disease, particularly with advancing age. There is far more to human life than a beating heart, the drawing of breath,...
