Pages:9

Introduction

Assisted dying or euthanasia is a substantial debate today. Researchers have focused on discussing this topic regarding moral values and ethical framework. The success books by Jack Kevorkian and Derek Humphrey reflect plenty of societal values, trust, empathy and harmony.. Public interest is related to the legislation for assisted death. This issue in the western state is considering legislation regarding general welfare means to help society. The argument taken in this form is support position for assisted deaths. Similar arguments will be made about it in this paper.This paper will take the support position under persuasive arguments that assisted death is a legal right, and it should be considered as a public good

The question of euthanasia is old, dates back to 2000 years ago. This is associated with the aging population, uncontrolled technology, and medical involvement of the patient.In the US, since the past half-century, society is carefully nurturing individuals’ liberty rights (Pro-euthanasia). Public goods are those goods that are supplied by the government to the entire people. Such products can be consumed by people at the same time. There are some examples of public goods such as air, defense, and lighthouse, public parks, street light, etc. (Kathy). In the characteristics of the public good is the non-rival benefit, it means if one takes the benefits, other people’s interests will not be reduced. The other feature is non-excludable means one cannot refuse to anyone to consume public goods. This all relates to improvement of welfare of human beings, that is what assisted deaths do.

Arguments to support Assisted Deaths

Physicians believe that moral differences should prevail between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Physicians have not initiated acts that can contribute to assisted suicide as patients’ death. Public opinion regarding assisted death is seen in past four decades that has shown that about 35% Americans are in favor of legalization and from 1991, this ratio increased to 60% (Eastman). Euthanasia is generally an act that is done by a physician in which, it ends the life intentionally, upon the request of the patient. Any lethal substance is administered to take patients’ death. This paper is discussing assisted dying under the context of the public good and whether people should consider it a public good or not (Kailash).  Some people say it is right, and some say it is wrong to practice. It is not considered to be harmful in the European and in few American states. It is normal in these states. It is not only including the people but also animals when the animal falls ill and takes a long time to recover from the disorder, so it is rightly processed for the animals of these states to assist death. Helping individuals through mercy killing is to relieve their pain.

Arguments to support

Assisted death is a controversial issue for healthcare in recent times because once abortion was legalized, voices were raised about euthanasia. Social workers hold the position of debate, while in 1993, the Delegate Assembly US passed the bill about self-determination decisions regarding end of death (Owen). This kind of situation highlight that assisted death should be a pubic good where everyone should be given a right to decide about his life (Assisted). Under this policy statement, end of life decisions addressed the critical issues related to advance directives, palliative care, and terminal illness, active and passive euthanasia (Eastman). The situation under this policy offered a position that self-determination can have a dominant value. Under this policy, it was also clear that social workers cannot be forced about their will, they are free to do what they want, i.e., participate in the act of suicide or personally inappropriate for workers to supply, deliver and personally participate in assisted death act (Owen).

The public health policy was lacking in terms of many holes, such as the American Association of suicidality that discusses individuals’ rights regarding public or common good. The perspective about public good was missing from this policy, and it was commonly argued that the wellbeing of society is above everything in this society.  The argument is clear here, in the case of self-determination, human being, if suffering from pain should be provided freedom. According to contemporary American culture, the scope of individuals is standard in it that can threaten how someone is destructive to the whole community but assisted death is a favor to all those patients who want to be free. The community has to face a harsh decision in the form ofassisted deaths, though it harms a life but it is beneficial for patient (Young).

There are different philosophical foundations regarding considering euthanasia a public good. There are various moral beliefs that this should be pubic good or not. The assisted death phenomenon exists due to the favor of physicians in some countries(Friesen). Generally, two ethical theories illustrate the wellbeing of human beings. Deontology and utilitarianism are two moral aspects that focus on the wellbeing of society and individuals. These theories are according to individual rights and describe how it implements to societal welfare(Eastman). Utilitarianism is about the action; if it is taken inherently good or right, that will create more good benefits as compared to bads, so it leads to the maximization of goods.

If a person favors euthanasia or assisted death concept, it will maximize goods for society. However, it will bring more consequences for the individuals and the community as a whole, a difference for those, who believe it is unethical. People who advocate this concept are enhancing the respect notion for autonomous decisions. The dying patients tend to promote trust in doctors because they willingly choose death over life. In this regard, physicians are creating cost-effective medicine and lethal injections to end the presence of such patients.

The assisted death can decrease the pain of the patient, but it overall hurts the wellbeing of society (Friesen). Utilitarian arguments are not in favor of euthanasia because this legalization can welcome the slippery slope argument. This argument is to invite involuntary euthanasia. For example, in the Netherlands, physicians have reported that lethal injections are provided to only people who are willing to die, so they provide formal approval.

The utilitarian argument also considers that assisted deaths speculate the physicians’ distrust, and this is increased due to the legal conditions of euthanasia. It is perceived that it can manage healthcare conditions. The physicians are the third party payers and members of family who coerce patients to request assisted death. The second leading theory against assisted deaths is deontology(Eastman). This moral theory argues that “actions can be bad or good for reasons rather than consequences.”  On the basis of this theory, assisted death has a good moral in it. Under the universal ethical principles, the actions and intentions are guided in the form of right and wrong determinants. These principles also argue that it is illegal to see the enslavement of human beings(Arguments). The argument against the deontological perspective shows that assisted death is “just participating in the act of killing a patient, and this concept is antithetic to the concept of the physician.” Many physicians face this asa moral consideration (Eastman).

Evidence has shown that assisted death occurs for the welfare of patients, so physicians favor it. The value of objective information in this regard can act minimal because assisted deaths in the Netherlands are only done under the prescribed limits of the guidelines. The state of individualism in different societies is at priority under humanitarian grounds. If it is to be considered according to American culture, the act of assisted deaths is destructive to the whole nation and human life. The community feels it as an act of real interaction that is reciprocal to care and mutual ties (Arguments). Community ideas about crisis management should be considered that need to be tackled. The action is not taken for the more significant interest of society as well as the public good.

Assisted death is not equivalent to murder and killing of the human being. This concept is related to the devastation of the idea of humanity. In this scenario, legal punish should not be allowed because it aids a person get relief from pain. The debate over the legalization of assisted death is not subsided for decades because people who support it have created strong beliefs to negate morality and feasibility. It is essential to respect individuals who are terminally ill. European convention for human rights has decided that though everyone has to face death ahead, conditional death in the form of assisted dying is not allowed (Arguments). This concept is related to the right to self-determination. The scope of this investigation under active euthanasia emphasizes the holiness of life. Declining the level of respect for every individual’s life is unjustified. Moral obligations on doctors are to end the terminally ill patients’ experience.

These arguments mainly discuss the connection between individuals and communities. Respecting fundamental values of life is essential that can be related to the interest of patient. The assisted death in the world has been faced many obligations and criticism because these activities are against the standard right to life for a person. The secular arguments in this way are different because they don’t consider the significance of the entire universe. The position of people, in this way, provide a clear introspection of the fundamental values that work for societal welfare.  For people, it is essential to consider the legal and ethical rights of the human being before considering such decisions.

Assisted death is such a process of termination of life intentionally. In the qualities of the this action,the beneficial approach is to help patients, it implies in the event that one takes the advantages, others’ inclinations won’t be diminished (Kathy). The other element is non-excludable methods one can’t decline to anybody to expend open products. The third component is resolute. The general wellbeing arrangement was inadequate as far as numerous gaps, for example, the American Association of suicidality that talks about people’s privileges with respect to greater welfare appear in favor of the assisted deaths.

Assisted death should be legal, it provides people a right to end their life when they need. The people of European and American states, they should be given the right to die with respect instead of facing pain and trouble in the hospitals who are the victims of the disorder. People of these states think it is a personal right of everyone to live and die; it is not a loss and benefit of other people. In this regard, the opinion is it should be lawful in other countries of the world.

Evidence

In the Netherlands, assisted death was legalized in 2001 after a lot of controversial public issues. In the 1980s, this process was performed legally under the adaptation of the system in the Royal Dutch Medical Association(Kailash). The judicial system of the country was aligned with the medical association. This law was guided by the Oregon experience, but the public was assured that Dutch law has some defects, and it must be addressed in the proposal formulated by Belgium. In all the jurisdictions, assisted deaths were considered as a well informed and well-considered form that is persistent. In law, the requesting person was permitted to explicit a written form as consent and should be competent by that specific time (Kailash).

Whether assisted death is a public good or not, it has seen a debate for decades. According to the American public, distinct viewpoints about public policy are discussed to show the legalization concept (David). According to 20% public in America, “it is logical to consider assisted death in the form of lethal injection.” 72% of people, in a survey, said, “It should not normally be considered to assist a relative or friend required this matter.” According to physicians, personal involvement in assisted death is not clear yet. The Colorado physicians in a survey said that 59% of them are willing to help patients in assisted deaths while in San Francisco, 70% of them were ready (Phoebe). According to the physicians of Washington State, 33% of physicians are of the view that they would be fine if assisted deaths will be performed (Robert). All these arguments highlight that euthanasia is considered to be a public good that is needed to be freely implemented in public.

References

Arguments, Pro-euthanasia. Ethics – Euthanasia: Pro-Euthanasia Arguments. 2017, www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml.

Behrendt, Kathy. “Whole Lives and Good Deaths.” Metaphilosophy, vol. 45, no. 3, 2014, pp. 331–347., doi:10.1111/meta.12089.

Chand, Kailash. “Why We Should Make Euthanasia Legal | Kailash Chand.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 July 2009, www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jul/01/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-uk.

Deaths, Assisted. Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? – Euthanasia – ProCon.org. 2019, euthanasia.procon.org/.

Dyer, Owen. “More than 1% of Deaths in Canada Last Year Were Medically Assisted.” Bmj, 2019, p. l1989., doi:10.1136/bmj.l1989.

Eastman, David L. “Dating the Deaths.” The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul, Feb. 2019, pp. 68–102., doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767183.003.0003.

Friesen, Phoebe. “Medically Assisted Dying and Suicide: How Are They Different, and How Are They Similar?” Hastings Center Report, vol. 50, no. 1, 2020, pp. 32–43., doi:10.1002/hast.1083.

Young, Robert. “Medically Assisted Dying.” Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets, 2011, doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0042. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.

Feminism in the 20th and 21st Century

 

    Crazy Offer!

    25% off

    on your first order