EUTHANASIA
ARGUMENTS
FOR AND AGAINST EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia is an attempt
to end someone life when he/she has an uncurable illness, euthanasia will be
done in order to release his/her from suffering his/her illness.
Euthanasia is the termination of an extremely ill person’s life in order to
relieve them from the suffering the illness is causing. The Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary 7th edition (2005) defines it as a practice (illegal
in most countries) of killing without pain a person who is suffering from a
disease that cannot be cured.
Nowadays, euthanasia is a relevant ethical issue.
Moreover, its legalization is being hotly debated in some other
countries. In such cases, the rules of law, depending on region or nation, can
be enforced, so that the problem under discussion (euthanasia) can not be
separated from the issues of the rights and obligations of the involved
parties.
In Indonesia, euthanasia is an act that violates the
Code of Medical Ethics Indonesia. Actions unethical, immoral, is illegal. From
the aspect of the rule of law, especially criminal law, euthanasia setting is
closely related to individual interests regarding the protection of a person's
life. Besides, euthanasia can not be
done and it is classified as an illegal act. Both in the positive law and the
ethics code regulate that performing an euthanasia is not allowed. Regarded to
the perspective of Islamic law, also regulated that an active euthanasia is an
act that is forbidden and punishable by God with a punishment of hell for those
who did.
In
the light of this situation, the problem of euthanasia is of current
importance. There are two opposing viewpoints with regard to euthanasia.
One considers sanctity of life important, while the other places emphasis on
quality of life, because only God alone may decide over human life. The other
position contends that in order to preserve the quality of life, everyone has a
right to self-determination and, if necessary, exit life without pain. In the
following, I have gathered some positive and negative arguments relating to
euthanasia that have been summarized from several literature.
The pro statements
to
support euthanasia is rooted in autonomy. Human persons are free and
autonomous, and therefore may choose a peaceful death rather than bearing the
indignity of a life no longer worth living. A few of patients believe that they
are better off dead than alive because they no longer find value in their
lives. A person who is suffering has the
right to choose what should be done with his or her life. He or she may choose
to get treated and he also has the freedom to not choose treatment. In simple
terms of fundamental rights, a person has the right to decide what he or she
wishes to do with his or her life.
That is
from the proponent, but from the opponent said that freedom
is a freedom to be and do what one discerns God wants him/her to be or to do.
It includes autonomous choice to accept or reject suffering and illness, and
also to abandon oneself to the will of God. Everyone does have the right to life, but
this right is not an absolute one because as life is given by God as a gift,
there is no absolute autonomy, cause we are stewards of our life. Moreover,
life is a gift of God's love and everyone is to preserve this life as well. Since
life is a gift from God, everyone has the obligation to live a life in
accordance with God's plan. The document is against intentional killing because
this is an act of rejection of
God's
sovereignty, a refusal of love for oneself, a denial of a natural instinct to
live, a flight from duties towards one's neighbor, to various communities.
Others said that only God has the power over life and death, and He exercises
this power according to his plan of wisdom and love. The autonomy of the person
is not absolute because it has to respect the ethical principles of
stewardship and solidarity. The human person is autonomous but within autonomy that is
limited by the principles of stewardship and solidarity.
Second
argument from proponents, euthanasia is the only way to relieve patients’ pain.
Is it human indeed to stay inexorable to people’s requests to set them free
from unbearable sufferings? A few of people believe no one can experience
others’ pain, therefore it is impossible to measure whether the person can bear
it or not. Besides, a man is created for life, and all of us have the instinct
of self-preservation, only people driven to despair by their disease, can ask
for death and it is their right. It is necessary to realize how horrible it is
to live, being conscious of the forthcoming death. Most people cannot overcome
this pressure and lose the sense of life, burdening their own life and the life
of their relatives as well.
From
opponents, suffering from pain have a meaning and can be faced without
a recourse to euthanasia. It is an inevitable part of our living and dying.
Moreover, it has unforeseeable spiritual impact on those who attend to the dying.
Through suffering, one can find spiritual growth and enter into the suffering and death.
The true relief of suffering is when in submission of self in obedience to
God sovereignty, one accepts suffering and death as a mystery that cannot be
fathomed. To those who are against euthanasia, the value and dignity of the
human person is
beyond the mere value of pleasure and pain.
Third arguments, “Dying with dignity” is one of the
arguments put forward by advocates of euthanasia. The suffering dying patients
lose that dignity due to their serious and painful illness. For advocates of
euthanasia, to have dignity means to be able to look at oneself with respect
and with certain degree of satisfaction. Furthermore, there is no more dignity
in a person, if there is no degree of satisfaction in looking at oneself by
reason of debilitation caused by sickness. Likewise, when one is dependent on
the care of other people because of sickness, this causes one to lose the
ability to depend on one’s own. Acceptance of euthanasia policies would give
terminally ill patients the option to direct physicians to terminate their life
at a time and in a manner that would reduce their suffering while maintaining
their personal dignity. If there is no chance of health improvement, according
to a number of surveys in American, the majority would not want to be kept
alive by life-support equipment, including artificial feeding. For them it is
undignified and useless to live in that state: they want to be free from this
trap, which moreover is a too expensive futile treatment.
For the opponents of euthanasia, human dignity and
dying with dignity have other meanings that the ones advanced by the defenders
of euthanasia. Dignity and dying with dignity do not mean choosing death rather
than life or artificial prolongation of life. The terms rather mean to have
respect for the autonomous wish of the patient, doing all that is reasonably
possible for the patient to live and to give a sense of hope though the patient
is dying. The view of dying with dignity, which is suggested by advocates of euthanasia,
is not considered to be true dignity of the human person. These
proponents
make the sufferers feel discomforted and even less than a person because they
point out that the sufferers or patients have lost their dignity due to the
ravages of
their
serious sickness or illness. Since human dignity is from God, and this dignity
of the person has its origins right from the moment of conception till natural
death, it must be respected and protected. Moreover, every person deserves
respect as there is indelible dignity and value in that human person. In other
word, no one can say that a person has lost his/her dignity due to suffering
and pain inflicted by terminal illness. The dignity has nothing to do with
ravages of sickness. Any kind of poor health can’t lessen the dignity of the
human person.
After presenting both the arguments from proponents
and opponents of euthanasia, I would like to sum up briefly my reasons to
oppose euthanasia. Euthanasia is unethical at the level of reason. The principal
responsibility of society and government is to protect life. Precisely, the primary
responsibility of every society and government is to take care of its members
and protect them from any danger or threat. Our human reason makes generally clear
that killing a human being is unethical for it is against human dignity and
rights, beginning with the fundamental right to life of every human being.
Hence, the legalization of euthanasia would be a failure of society and
government to safeguard its members from legal killing. On human life, I am
convinced that euthanasia is not ethical because I believe in the sanctity of
life as well as its inviolability. Euthanasia implies taking human life, and it
is against the fifth commandment of God, which is “You shall not kill.”
Therefore I am against euthanasia and for life. However, cases of euthanasia should be decided on a case-by-case
basis between a person, their family, and their physician. This is not to say
that a physician or any other medical professional should have the right to
make recommendations for or against voluntary human adult euthanasia. The
decision should ultimately be that of the patient.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albert-Lorincz, C. (2015). Pros and Cons of
Euthanasia. A Qualitative Study. Revista Română de Bioetică, Vol. 13, Nr.3.
Benatar, D. (2011). A legal right
to die. Current Oncology, Volume 18, Number 5, 206-207.
Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia -
The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal
of Interdisciplinary Studies, VoL.3, No. 6, 279-284.
Jewell, P. (2005). Rationality,
euthanasia, and the sanctity of life. Australian Association for
Professional and Applied Ethics 12th Annual Conference, 1-8.
McCormarck, P. (1998). Quality of
Life and The Right to Die: An Ethical Dilemma. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
28(1), 63-69.
Naga, B. S., & Mrayyan, M. T.
(2013). Legal and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia : Argumentative Essay. Middle
East Journal of Nursing, Vol.7, Issue 5, 31-39.
Velleman, J. D. (1992). Against
The Right To Die. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 17:665-681.
Wakiran, M. D., Djemi, &
Erwin. (2013). Pendekatan Bioetik Tentang Eutanasia. Jurnal Biomedik
(JBM), Volume 5, Nomor 1, 23-28.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar
Silahkan komentar disini