FREE ESSAY ON EUTHANASIA

EUTHANASIA

A man, well into his forties, lies helplessly in the cold room of the hospital. He eagerly
waits for the results of his tests that are to be hand delivered by the warm-hearted
doctor. He lies there, his skin is pasty white, his body is slowly deteriorating both
inside and out, and his hair is gradually falling out. Yet somehow the man manages to
fight for his life, striving to be able to go home to his wife, play football with his
son, and take his dog Nasia, for a walk. In the faint distance the man can hear the
footsteps of the doctor, the sound intensifying as the doctor get closer. As the
physician approaches the door the man's heart thumps louder, and faster, in sync with the
sound of the footsteps. Nervously the doctor opens the door, walks inside, and gives the
ill man an artificial smile, the kind people give when they pose for pictures. A sound
comes out, and the man hears the doctor say, "you have lung cancer, and it is terminal."
His once beating heart sinks to the floor, and all hope flies out of the window into the
realm of death. The man, pondering the long road of agony ahead, says to the doctor, "I
do not wish to suffer the effects of the cancer, I want to die." He continues by asking
the question every doctor fears to answer, "Can you give me something to end my life?"
This process is known as euthanasia. The word stems from Greek origin meaning "good
death." In general, euthanasia is the process of a physician killing a human being who
suffers from a painfully terminal disease to bring them peace. The topic has become quite
controversial throughout the United States as well as the rest of the world. Advocates
feel that each and every person has the right to be able to choose how they live, and how
they die. They claim that everyone should have the privilege of controlling their own
destiny. Opponents of mercy killing argue that the act is immoral and would have a
negative effect on the social and moral standings of society. They believe that life and
death should only be in the hands of God.
There are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. Passive euthanasia is taking away
or withholding treatment even if the person is going to die. Active euthanasia is
assisting the patient who suffers from the terminal illness to die by giving them drugs
or injections. While many argue that only the passive type of euthanasia is acceptable,
others argue that morally, there is not a difference between the two, and that neither of
them should be conducted.
Activists of euthanasia claim that it would be killing in the name of compassion. They
argue that any passionate and humane character would not want to see their loved one
suffer especially when there is no hope for recovery. Supporters of this technique
believe that they are actually helping the sickly individual by easing their discomforts
and releasing them of their pains and letting them go on to a "better place," free of
harm, and illnesses. Adversaries of euthanasia state that it is merely degrading the
human life. They support God's sovereignty of human life, contesting that it is too
sacred and too valuable to be taken away by anyone other than God. 
Enemies of euthanasia have many questions that are left unanswered. For instance, if
euthanasia was to become legalized, where do we stop or start? How advanced must the
illness be? Are the doctors 100 percent right about the diagnosis? Which illnesses are
"treatable" by euthanasia? Are handicaps to be included? Where do we draw the line and
who is to make the final decision? Are those in pain even getting the right medicine, the
right dosage? Has every treatment option been explored, should they be? These questions
cannot be fully answered for every situation that occurs, which leaves many people unsure
about the idea of euthanasia and its morality. Supporters on the other hand would state
that these questions do not have to be answered by any professional, but by the patients
themselves. If they are uncomfortable, depressed, and can no longer bear the cruelties of
their illness, then it should be up to them if they want to end their life.
Opponents of euthanasia continue their argument by stating that when symptoms of
terminally ill patients are diagnosed and treated properly, euthanasia is not a necessary
"treatment." They claim under these conditions, the patient's fears are dealt with, help
is provided, they feel safe, and rarely ask for death a second time. Many patients
receive excellent palliative care, which makes the ill patients more comfortable.
However, people for euthanasia ask the question, "who's to say they are not in pain?" All
too often the patients are mute, unconscious, or in a state of coma. There is not one
doctor or human being that can accurately predict the amount of pain the patient is
undergoing. Different individuals may experience various symptoms with each kind of
disease and that makes it tough to estimate the patient's level of pain. Also, who's to
say that the doctor diagnosed the patient correctly? They are, after all, human, and all
beings make mistakes. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason to say that the patients
should be able to make their own decision rather than have the law make it for them.