The Problem of Euthanasia Moral Acceptance

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The Problem of Euthanasia Moral Acceptance

The concept of euthanasia became a topic of ethical discussion regarding the acceptance of specific procedures directly affecting the personal right to live. Scholars explore many issues concerning not only the medical and legal aspects but also the moral approach to understanding the necessity of the way to ease the suffering of the patient and offer alternative ways of accepting inevitable death. However, while euthanasia may be the only solution in some cases, it can also reduce the value of human life.

There are various types and approaches to euthanasia procedures, and each has its moral indicator. Hence, before analyzing particular cases, we should study the division of the concept. Depending on the process, euthanasia can be active or passive. The first type includes treatment that was prescribed according to the terminally ill patients request, with the acknowledgment of a health professional that it is the only and necessary step to relieve the patients suffering (Bârsan & Dragu 64). At the same time, the passive type is characterized by the refusal to apply life-sustaining measures and treatment, which will result in the subsequent death of a patient. There are also voluntary consented, involuntary against the patients will, and non-voluntary patients cannot decide for themselves (Bârsan & Dragu 64). Thus, different types imply a different rate of choice, creating ethical obstacles when the patient did not make the request.

I believe that euthanasia is morally acceptable when the person cannot receive any further treatment that will improve health conditions deemed unbearable. As a rule, it concerns terminally ill patients, but the health professional must approve the decision, stating that there are no cure alternatives. The application of legal euthanasia in such cases grants the right to self-autonomy and freedom over individual choices and their own body (Bârsan & Dragu 65). In the context of release from constant pain, involuntary euthanasia may also be acceptable. For instance, in the case of post-coma unresponsiveness, when a patient remains only biologically alive but suffers from severe physical and mental dysfunctions (Kalal 75544). Hence, the procedure provides an opportunity to end life with dignity for people with critical cases of consciousness disorders.

However, the other side of the issue is that the legal approval of the procedures can lead to the reduction of the value of life in the state. It can be a result of broadening the possible scenarios in which euthanasia is necessary. Even though the patient requests the procedure, there are situations when the health conditions can be cured. Consequently, the health professionals and the state are responsible for not valuing citizens lives and not providing possible treatment. For instance, in countries where the regulation is out of control, patients with depression or loneliness can request euthanasia (Bârsan & Dragu 65). In such a case, it is criminal for doctors to prescribe procedures to terminate a life that can be saved. There are various therapy practices and strategies to deal with mental illnesses and minimize their impact on individuals (Kalal, 75545). Thus, it is unacceptable for the states policy to help citizens who do not suffer from critical conditions commit assisted suicide instead of providing treatment to save and improve their lives.

Therefore, the procedures of euthanasia are a controversial topic in moral discussions. I am sure there are cases when it can be acceptable to terminate patients lives with consent and dignity to end suffering, leading to inevitable death. It must be done only through the agreement with the health professional and in the case when no other procedures would be helpful. However, it is ethically unacceptable for the state to allow patients to end their life if there are still chances to improve their health conditions and avoid a fatal outcome.

Works Cited

Bârsan Maria M. and Dragu, Geanina. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Pros and Cons Regarding the Right to End Your Life with Dignity. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, vol. 15, no. 1, 2022, pp. 63-68.

Kalal, Nipin. Euthanasia: Right to Live & Right to Die. International Journal of Current Research, vol. 10, no. 11, 2018, pp..75543-75546. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!