Revised Analysis Blog

From the previous posts you can obviously tell that my topic for this blog is euthanasia. Although it is often called the “good death” my posts over the next couple of weeks will examine the bad nature of this practice. After doing more research, writing blogs, and reading the comments to these blogs I have decided to narrow my topic down a little bit. There are two forms of euthanasia. One is passive euthanasia which is removing life sustaining treatment or withholding treatment from a patient. The other is active euthanasia. Both forms of euthanasia have been covered but the main type that I am proposing that is immoral is active euthanasia. As I have stated before, active euthanasia is the acceleration of death by injection of drugs. These are two distinct opposites because one allows the patient to die and the other intentionally brings about the death of the patient.

There are many opposing arguments facing active euthanasia. One argument that agrees with active euthanasia is that it is an act of mercy. Some question how one could think that it is cruel to deny a suffering person the right to end their agony. This argument leads to active euthanasia being in the best interest of the patient. It is the sentiment of some that if a person only has sorrow left in their life, then aiding them in ending their life is in the best interest of the patients. And still others feel like a person should not be forced to stay alive against his or her own will . Autonomy after all is all about the freedom of a person to make decisions about his or her own life and medical treatment.

Then there is the other side of the argument. A lot of people are against active euthanasia for many reasons. The American Medical Association states that active euthanasia goes against protocol for doctors. Even the American Geriatric Association feels that if a patient is inquiring about euthanasia then this should “trigger” the health care provider to understand the patient’s pain and put forth all efforts to relieve this pain. It is wrong to kill a person or to help a person to kill themselves. The sanctity of life is a major argument for those that are against euthanasia. This deals with the fact that life is something to be promoted and cherished and to not be taken for granted. Life should be respected in all of its stages, even if the last stages of life are painful and hard to endure. I do realize that not everyone believes in God that will read this post, but it is the argument of some that humans are playing God by deciding when a person’s life should be over. Even with the new health care plan proposed by Obama, many older citizens are questioning whether the legalization of euthanasia will force them to sign living wills saying that they would like to receive physician assisted suicide. The truth in this matter has many people and especially senior citizens worried that a part of cutting cost is by legalizing euthanasia.

When deciding upon whether euthanasia is right or wrong there are a lot of things that need to be balanced out. For instance is saving a person’s life inferior to saving that person from pain and also is loss of life better than loss of pain? These and many more questions that must be examined and answered before one is able to come to a conclusion as to whether active euthanasia should be legalized. If it is illegal to kill another person, is there really a difference between murder and active euthanasia? Active euthanasia is also known as mercy killing, but is this really an act of mercy ? And with euthanasia only being legal in the state of Oregon do we really want this legalization to spread to all of the states of America? It is my sentiment that when there is an absence of hope, there should always be an “err on the side of life”.

This is an interesting story about a woman named Charlotte Allen who was harassed by her health care providers to sign a living will. She had to face the reality of this so called “good death.” For more on this story click here