Euthanasia and mercy killing: moral and ethical concerns

Biomedical Ethics: Euthanasia

Mercy killing continues to elicit debates on the moral and ethical aspects involved in conducting the act. Mercy killing, which is also called euthanasia, is a practice that medical professionals consider to assist the terminally ill patients (Huxtable 21). Terminal illnesses do not have a cure, or such conditions that have terminal consequence are irreversible. For instance, the case of Paul Mills, who was terminally ill due to cancer of the esophagus, is an illustration of euthanasia. The doctor involved, Dr. Nancy Morrison arrived at the conclusion after the patient agreed to have the practice performed on him. Euthanasia is currently a discussion subject in the legal context as governments and medical organizations seek to establish legal regulations and definitions of the practice. However, the moral and social ethical values are the focus of many who have diverse views of the impacts of euthanasia.

Arguments against euthanasia

The case of Paul Mills ignited mixed reactions after his death led to the arrest of Morrison. The scenario began with the observation that the patient was extremely sick, and chances of recovery were minimal (Robb 12). This fuelled the thought of exercising euthanasia by the family. The family, after making their considerations, agreed to the patient undergoing euthanasia. The nurses started by removing the active life support. However, it happened that the case was not as severe as they imagined; hence, the patient reacted violently before passing out. This means that, the actual intention of the practice, which is to end life of the individual without causing more harm and suffering. The purpose of conducting euthanasia is to terminate the life of the person, by showing mercy while alleviating the suffering. However, I request to differ based on the following arguments. According to the case of Paul, it is clear that the removal of the life support machine, instead of assisting him to die without suffering, it caused more suffering to him. The use of pain relievers did not help him relax, but complicated the situation (Robb 20). Therefore, in the view of the situation, it is clear that euthanasia is morally unacceptable as it is equivalent to torture and eventual murder of the person.

Secondly, according to all societal beliefs and practices, the process of taking the life of a person, whether with or without their consent, is equivalent to the crime of murder. No person has the authority to take their life as it is not their own. For instance, a child belongs to the society and not the parent alone. Therefore, taking the life of an individual is equivalent of taking a person who belongs to the society from them. This person could be the next leader or influential person in the country if they recover from the sickness. Besides, according to most societal beliefs, there is a God who heals His people. Thus, the practice of euthanasia is equivalent of comparing the persons who make the decision to God who gives life (Diaconescu 16). Life is a precious commodity every entity should have the liberty to experience it to the last bit without undergoing suffering, and torture as it happens with euthanasia. Therefore, it is morally wrong to execute murder on a person in the name of saving them from the suffering they are undergoing. Additionally, there are other modes of alienating pain and suffering from the individual other that conducting euthanasia on the person. Such include practices such as terminal sedation for palliative care. Thus, conducting euthanasia on a person is not the last measure available to end the suffering of a person.

In relation to the case against Dr. Nancy Morrison, the case did not go through as she got indictment. However, the moral argument outside the court is evidence enough to show that, society does not agree with the process. The family sued her despite the knowledge that they gave authorization for him to undergo the process. They viewed the incidence as an act of deliberate killing, which indicates that the concerns against the process of euthanasia are genuine morally (Diaconescu 22). All these reasons lead to the conclusion that no person has the moral right to take the life of another; neither does any person have the moral right to take their own life. Thus, the case of Paul and Dr. Morrison was too lenient to grant her indictment. Euthanasia has no moral basis; thus, accepting the terms of euthanasia is equivalent of suicide and murder combined for all involved in making decisions and executing them.

Conclusion

Euthanasia, in view of the arguments above, presents a case for further evaluation. According to this case, the doctor acted as the family instructed. Legally, the family authorized the process, and thus she is not liable to the consequences. However, it is clear that the process used to end the supposed suffering of the patient did not meet the quality standards expected. The world is changing, and there are new technologies that can aid the process of euthanasia without complicating the situation. The recommendation; therefore is for the hospital policy to establish the legal basis for conducting euthanasia. Additionally, we should explore safe means of conducting the procedure. The moral basis of conducting euthanasia beats that against in my view as it eliminates suffering, financial crisis and other related negative impacts of the illness of the patient on the family.