Euthanasia means “a good death” and “dying well”. A good death means dying with peaceful, painless, lucid and loved ones gathering around. Euthanasia defined as the termination of ill people’s life aim to reduce suffering from incurable and painful disease. Euthanasia classify into two major types, included passive and active. In passive euthanasia ill people dead by withholding of common treatment, such as antibiotics.
It’s your body and you should decide what to do with it. People should not have to suffer through the pain and embarrassment that illnesses tend to cause. The humiliation felt when you are no longer able to control your body, to feel comfortable in your own skin. People should have the right to die if they are miserable and in pain. They should have the right to die when they are ready, if they are ready.
It will indeed ease the financial and psychological burden on the patient and loved ones. It gives the person their right to choose and it should be included in the law books of the CARICOM countries. Euthanasia, in its many forms, is an inherent right that should not be infringed upon through its not being legalized. “Euthanasia refers to choosing a dignified death, rather than one set for the individual, and in a slow and painful manner at that. When palliative care is no longer an option and treatment has failed time and again, the option to choose "the good death" should remain open at all times.
Suppose the patient and doctor decide not to treat the illness and let nature take its course in killing them. This is very common and patients decide not to receive treatment even though they know it will eventually kill them. The next argument is, what would be wrong with allowing euthanasia as a fast and painless death verses a slow deterioration if the ending result of them both is ultimately death. Singer claims, “If there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and allowing to die, active euthanasia should also be accepted as humane and proper in certain circumstances” (Singer 2011,
They have the right to choose whether they should live or not instead of suffering in their internal prison. Dying slowly only pains the terminally ill person and their family more. Allowing them to choose the way they die instead of succumbing to an illness helps the patient keep their dignity even after death.
We believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, a person should receive punishment. This is the purpose of the justice system. The whole rule of double jeopardy defies this, not bringing justice to those who deserve it as it forbids for the accused to be tried again. It will be more beneficial to society as a whole if we abolish double jeopardy, to correct the mistakes of the justice system and essential for progression.
The physician has to remain willing to care for and the patient has to remain willing to be cared for and that is a respect for life. PAS neglects that respect for life. Dyck then says that when the respect of life is present in the patient, they seek pain relief methods which have shown to successfully prolong life and ease pain until the illness takes the life of the patient (Dyck, 40). Killing is also a violation of an individual’s inalienable right to life, according to Dyck. He states that suicide leaves adverse effects on those that are intertwined with that individual’s life.
This article talks about physician-assisted deaths from a Kantian theory standpoint, in the article it states that “the decision to ends one’s life is itself not autonomous” (Dinh, 478). Autonomy follows the idea of making own decisions for you, not others without inappropriate influence; Kant believes that this procedure violates autonomy and therefore should not be done. Although the article is slated from Kant’s viewpoint, it is also important to remember the other viewpoint. This topic is morally important in our society because such procedures occur today in our society. In many states and countries, physician-assisted deaths are becoming illegal, but are there benefits to this procedure that outweigh the consequences?
The argument of autonomy and dying in dignity is given prominence by cases such as Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy, who both argued that “Suffering, indignity, and the loss of independence are undesirable” (Benatar, 2010, p2) and as a result a mentally cognitive individual suffering from chronic illness or terminal illness should be legally allowed to request assisted dying. This ensures that individuals are able to “arrange to die at a chosen time, in privacy and with dignity” (Benatar, 2010, p3). Diane Pretty suffered from Motor Neuron Disease and was experiencing the disintegration of her body, as a result she appealed to the court to allow her husband to help her end her life, but the request was denied (Doyal, 2001, p1079). Diane’s argument was essentially grounded on the value of autonomy and dignity, the reality of her disease meant she would likely suffer from extreme pain and die an undignified death. The rapid degeneration of her body meant that she would become dependent on those around her for the simplest of tasks.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.