The right to life is often mentioned as the first and most essential of all fundamental human rights and freedoms, but the right to choose is also crucial.
If a person is unwilling or unable to appreciate life because it has been severely limited owing to health difficulties, he or she should be offered the option to terminate it. This is a major sticking point in disputes about the ethical and legal consequences of euthanasia and assisted suicide between opponents and advocates of these medical practices.
Is Euthanasia Ethical?
To begin, euthanasia, also known as mercy killing or assisted suicide, is a medical procedure that involves removing a terminally ill patient’s life support system or providing an injection that allows a person to die in a swift, civilized, and painless manner.
Furthermore, physician-assisted dying is consistent with the ethical ideals of human autonomy, kindness, and medical honesty.
Because “legalized euthanasia would protect the vulnerable from unjust death and permit peaceful dying with dignity,” it is a solution to liberate individuals from physical or psychological pain.
It takes into consideration the patient’s desire to die and promotes one’s right to be heard and freedom of choice, both of which are qualities that individuals in their final years dearly need. To be honest, it is difficult to imagine anything more cruel and callous than allowing someone to continue to suffer despite their desire to end it.
Second, when a patient’s condition is serious but irreversible, and life support becomes an enormous financial and psychological burden for friends and family, euthanasia looks to be very useful and soothing.
People can sometimes spend years or decades in a coma before dying naturally. A coma, on the other hand, is more akin to a primitive condition than regular life.
The individual is unable to think, feel, or react to the environment. Patients on life support systems survive as long as they are on them, which is costly and necessitates continual monitoring by healthcare professionals. Only a few families would be able to pay for such a service, allowing patients to die on their own.
Third, if a person voluntarily decides to end his or her life prematurely because he or she is terminally ill, and does not alter his or her mind after psychological counseling, assisted suicide appears to be the most compassionate option.
In reality, terminating one’s life in a medical environment under the supervision of specialists and in the company of close family and friends is far more ethical than allowing one to commit suicide.
To sum up, physician-assisted dying should be considered ethical and lawful because it adheres to healthcare’s moral norms and promotes one’s freedom of choice.
Furthermore, it relieves individuals of pain and suffering, reduces a family’s financial and psychological responsibilities, and may reduce the risk of suicide. At the same time, because they are not founded on real data, the arguments against euthanasia appear to be prejudiced and readily debunked.