Theoretical Paradigms: Symbolic Interaction Approach, Structural-Function Approach

¶ … theoretical paradigms: symbolic interaction approach, structural-function approach ( identifying manifest function, latent functions, social latent dysfunction) social-conflict approach analyzing euthanasia. Euthanasia There is presently much controversy regarding the topic of euthanasia as even though the process gathered many supporters, most of the general public continues to criticize it. It is difficult to determine the exact effect that euthanasia has on the patient, given that some might be unable to fully comprehend everything related to the medical procedure when they are the ones responsible for ordering it.

Although some communities are likely to accept euthanasia as being moral, others are very probable to condemn it and relate to it as something that is particularly wrong. There are a series of factors influencing people's perspectives in regard to euthanasia, ranging from the cultural standards that they were accustomed with and until their social status.

Examining euthanasia by using theoretical paradigms makes it easier for the analyst and for his or her readers to gain a better understanding of the process, the risks involved, and the benefits that one is expected to obtain from it. Euthanasia is frequently referred to as being a sympathetic alternative to an individual's suffering. That respective person has to be in a lot of pain and with no chances to survive in the near future for the medical procedure to seem less cruel.

The family and the individual would both be relieved to know that pain would no longer be present consequent to euthanasia. To a certain degree, the process can be compared to anesthetics, given that anesthesia is inducing a state of numbness into the patient. In cases when patients have no chances to survive, anesthesia is seen as something that helps the individual through his or her last moments.

However, given that people are virtually rendered unconscious after being anesthetized, it appears that the difference between anesthesia and euthanasia is smaller than most prefer to believe. The structural-functional paradigm prevents people from taking cases separately, as society promotes the belief that everyone should be treated equally, with no exceptions whatsoever. This paradigm is virtually responsible for installing the "big picture" perspective, being unsupportive toward situations when individuals would prefer their conditions to be treated differently.

Freedom of speech is not necessarily the subject being discussed when referring to the structural-functional approach. The main topic in this matter is the one related to the well-being of society and of inter-human relationships. Whereas one might be inclined to believe that euthanasia is beneficial in a condition involving themselves or someone that they are close to, that same person might think differently when looking at matters from an objective point-of-view, considering that it would be wrong for society to express no lack of interest concerning a human life.

A structural-functionalist take in the medical world relates primarily to the benefits society as a whole is left with consequent to the moment when a medical procedure takes place. Although this approach does not support the belief that euthanasia is wrong, it does not support the concept that it is beneficial either. One can consider this paradigm as being impartial, given that it does not actually attempt to discuss the topic.

Its main purpose is to continue to encourage a society where all people are provided with the same treatment, with laws being particularly important in determining when a certain process compliant with rational convictions. In the case of euthanasia, being rational means that one would have to leave feelings aside in favor of embracing logics, with taking someone's life being illogical, regardless of the factors involved. This being said, it would not be normal for the general public to agree to end a human life.

In this situation, people are expected to die naturally, without the intervention of outside factors. The structural functionalist paradigm has both obvious and hidden intentions. Its manifest functions are planned and understandable whereas its latent functions are accidental and less noticeable. In spite of the fact that this approach does not support matters that have individuals act separately from society (thus becoming isolated from it), one of its latent functions involves accepting euthanasia as a procedure that prevents people from wanting to break-away from the social-order.

It is characteristic for people to want to be unique, considering that individuals constantly express diverging perspectives in regard to certain matters. With euthanasia being a delicate topic, it is difficult for people in some areas to benefit from the right of taking their own lives or the lives of the persons that they are close to (when there is no other alternative and when suffering has reached a high-point).

Even though it is meant to keep people together, the structural functionalist paradigm is ineffective in preventing individuals from putting across morally wrong behavior. The social-conflict paradigm regard society as a place where everyone faces the risk of being treated unequally, especially those who are deprived. Some consider that free will extends to deciding how long one wants to live his or her life.

Even with the fact that it might seem unnecessary for a particular person to die, the respective individual should be presented with the right to end his or her life. Social-conflict theorists are likely to promote the belief that it would only be natural for people to end their lives whenever they want to.

However, euthanasia needs to take place in special circumstances, with all the requirements demanded for an individual to be granted with the right to end his or her life having to be met in order for the respective person to be assisted accordingly. In some cases, people are euthanized without their direct approval of the procedure. This makes it difficult for social-conflict theorists to accept euthanasia as being a moral process.

Even though those close to them and society as a whole considered it best for some people to be euthanized, it seems rather immoral that the persons dying did not even get the chance to express their opinion regarding the matter. Most conditions involving euthanasia are related to an individual who no longer wants to feel pain and feels that death is the only option available.

However, there are also situations when the euthanized individual has no power to express his or her opinion and it is up to their family or to another form of authority whether or not the person in question should be left alive. Social-conflict supporters are most probably in favor of euthanasia when the individual about to die expresses his or her intention regarding the topic. The social-conflict paradigm is very likely to criticize situations when individuals are put to death without having the opportunity to accept euthanasia.

Even with the fact that some conditions appear to be intolerable and it seems like death is the only solution, it would be wrong to decide whether a person lives or dies, since that respective individual is the only one with.