The act of mercy killing, assisted suicide or euthanasia is a controversial and vastly debated issue in current social and health care fields. The health care profession is challenged to provide compassionate and supportive health care in spite of the highly revolutionizing technological system that has the capacity to lengthen the periods of life. However, the extension of life is not always applicable and appropriate with quality of life and human dignity promotion.
Eventually, health practitioners will encounter a clinical event involving a request for assisted suicide or euthanasia, which will challenge both personal beliefs and professional standards (Battin & Lipman 2006 56). As far as history is concerned, health care has been viewed as a caring profession with the utmost goal of preserving life and promoting comfort for both the patient and family. The request for assisted suicide is often based on the premise of ending life when quality of life is no longer possible. Requests for assisted suicide are based on current or future threats to one or more of these dimensions of quality of life (57).
The alleviation of suffering is frequently cited as a justification for assisted death. Euthanasia is still illegal in all states due to the fact that it is still a murder in the absence of statutory provisions to the country. Scope and Limitations Discussion about the assisted suicide or Euthanasia challenge ethical perspectives and its legal stand to explore interpersonal values concerning the value of life, rationale of death, and the meaning of suffering, to contemplate the philosophical foundations of such action, and validity of providing unjustifiable action with the sense of murder.
The over-all study validates the appropriateness of the action and condemns the posted action itself. By providing moral and legal stands, negation of euthanasia is the primary subject of the entire research. The following are the objectives imposed into the study in order to serve as the guidelines for conducting the research. a. To be able to provide justifications that shall negate the implementation of such actions and impose the overall negation based on moral and ethical considerations b.
To be able to identify, discuss, analyze and evaluate the issues concerning the subject of euthanasia involving the positive affirmative and rebuttal points of the subject Purpose of the Research The study exemplifies the validity of negating the action, euthanasia, with the view that as such is an actual murder in disguise with comprehendible rationales, which are not, ought to justify the action. The purpose of discussion lies in awareness expansion and exploration of the internal feelings and ideas that shall justify the action’s negation.
Furthermore, with the fact that such act is negated, the value of life has been preserved technically, morally and legally as an important aspect of total humanity. Review of Literatures Originating from the Greek word euthanatos, euthanasia, meaning “good death” or “easy death”, was accepted in situations in which people had what were considered incurable diseases. Euthanasia is defined broadly as the mercy killing of the hopelessly ill, injured, or incapacitated (Pozgar 2007 370).
By the beginning of the twentieth century, there were still no clear answers or guidelines regarding the use of euthanasia. Unlike in prior centuries when society as a whole supported or rejected euthanasia, different segments of today’s society apply distinct connotations to the word, generating further confusion. Some believe euthanasia is meant to allow a painless death when one suffers from incurable condition, yet is not dying (Chan and Chaw 2006 169; Scimenti 2005 131).
Others, who remain in the majority, perceive euthanasia as an instrument to aid only dying people in ending their lives with as little difficulty and suffering as possible (Pozgar 2007 370). The concept of Euthanasia possesses two major types, particularly Active euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when persons commit an act to end a life. This type may include self-administered lethal injections of medications ordered by a physician in physician-assisted suicide (Butts & Rich 2005 235; Chan and Chaw 2006 169).
Moreover, since the patient cannot take his or her own life, any person who assists in the causing of the death could be subjected to criminal sanction for aiding and abetting suicide (Pozgar 2007 370; Scimenti 2005 131; Chan and Chaw 2006 169). Forgoing futile life-sustaining treatment in the terminally ill, however, is a widely accepted practice in medically advanced countries (Chan and Chaw 2006 169); hence, the act is not justifiable by the rationale that treatment is impossible. As for the fact that as long as medical intervention of life is possible, treatment should be done by all means.