OPPapers.com

Euthanasia

There are many arguments for euthanasia. One of the best arguments is that there are persons who want euthanasia, and that we are bound to respect their wishes. Even though we are not obliged to respect all requests for euthanasia, there are some requests we should respect. In cases of voluntary euthanasia where there is consent from the patient and it is verified by more than one doctor that the patient is terminally ill, then society should respect the patient's wishes and grant them access to end his or her own life. Its permissibility can be argued on the following two fronts: rationality and the rights of the patient.
Is voluntary euthanasia, in cases where there is consent from the patient morally permissible? Some argue that it is not permissible based on the idea of rationality. The patient is not of a sound, rational mind to make a decision regarding his life because he is under a great deal of pain, suffering, and emotional stress. Others may even argue that it is not even rational to want death, for the value of life is much more important. But I think these people are mistaken. First, no one is more clear-headed about the consequences or knows more about the patient's experience than the patient himself. It is subjective; the degree of deteriorating physical life and the value of one's remaining life. Thus, only the patient could be in the position to decide if he feels death to be worse or if there are worse things than death, such as long-term pain, confusion, and loss of dignity, followed by death. An example was given by the Zygmaniak case. George Zygmaniak was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1973, paralyzing him from the neck down and putting him in terrible pain. George begged his brother to kill him. When his brother asked him if he should "end [his] pain" George was able to nod affirmatively before his brother shot him. George was the only one to be in the position of pain and physical loss of his body. He judged that life was not worth...