Powered by ProofFactor - Social Proof Notifications

Examining the Ethical Implications of Voluntary Euthanasia

Jan 11, 2023 | 0 comments

blog banner

Jan 11, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

Morality views concerning voluntary euthanasia vary from one individual to another depending of their religious beliefs, principles, values and virtues. For instance, the nurse manager held strong notions against voluntary euthanasia. She considers it generally immoral and inappropriate as she terms it a selfish and insensitive act that in the end causes more harmful. She believes no reason can justify the act of ending the life of another being as she counteracts most reasons presented in support of voluntary euthanasia by most people.

The nurse manager believes that every individual’s life is invaluable hence presents the need to preserve them. Voluntary euthanasia undermines this notion and puts a condition on the value of life suggesting that at some point the life of an individual is worthless to the society which is unacceptable. She believes that as much as the patients have incurable conditions their lives are still intrinsically valuable and needs to be preserved. In addition, the nurse manager considers the reference to health scares resources as an excuse to get rid of those considered a burden to the society as well as a justification for physicians to provide poor quality health. She believes that physicians ought to retain their role in the society as life savers and not taint their noble duty by killing as implied by Somerville (56).

In addition, the nurse manager believes that the right to life does not give anyone the freedom of self-determination of over life and death. As much as every individual has the right to determine their own fate no one has the freedom of deciding to end their lives as they did not choose to be born. Besides, religiously, only God has the mandate to decide when to end an individual’s life and requires no interference from human beings thus conducting voluntary euthanasia is violation of religious beliefs (Somerville 59).

Moreover, voluntary euthanasia is suicide, and suicide is immoral so is aiding in the suicide mission. Voluntary euthanasia promotes the culture of aiding in suicide mission which is unacceptable by society, punishable by law and regarded as murder (Somerville 60). Therefore, for whatever reason, there is no justification for euthanasia.

Furthermore, the nurse manager condemns the notion that renders euthanasia morally right by claiming that voluntary euthanasia promotes the best interest of all stakeholders involved, the patient majorly, and does not violets anyone’s right. She agrees with Somerville (62)’s claim that there is completely no circumstance that fits that description arguing that people are often wrong concerning what they consider best- what is considered the best is often morally inappropriate- and may end up being harmful to the society. For instance euthanasia, whether voluntary or involuntary, does have consequences on the relatives and physicians as they often live with anger, grief and guilt implying that its impact outweighs the happiness of the patient hence is immoral.

In summary, the nurse manager is against voluntary euthanasia and maintains that it is morally inappropriate. She believes voluntary euthanasia is assisted suicide which is immoral, unacceptable by religion as God is the soul decision maker concerning death and every life is valuable hence ought to be preserved and putting a condition on its value is immoral. In addition she is against diluting the role of physicians which is to save life and not to kill. Therefore, she believes voluntary euthanasia ought to be discouraged as there is no appropriate justification for it.

However, there are also those who argue in favor of voluntary euthanasia. They argue that it is a compassionate and humane option for those who are suffering from incurable, terminal illnesses and are in a great deal of pain. They argue that denying a person the right to end their suffering is inhumane and goes against the principle of autonomy and self-determination. They also argue that it can be done in a way that respects the patient’s dignity and is done with their informed consent. They propose that with proper guidelines and regulations in place, voluntary euthanasia can be performed safely and responsibly. Additionally, it can also ease the burden on healthcare resources and the emotional burden on loved ones who may be caring for someone in a terminal state.

Furthermore, proponents of voluntary euthanasia argue that the right to die is a fundamental human right that should be protected. They argue that individuals should have the autonomy to make their own choices about their own bodies and lives, including the decision to end their suffering. They also argue that it is not the role of the government or healthcare providers to prolong suffering, but rather to alleviate it. They argue that a person’s right to die with dignity should be respected, and that denying them this right is a violation of their human rights.

In conclusion, the morality of voluntary euthanasia is a complex and controversial issue that has been widely debated for decades. While some argue that it is morally inappropriate, others argue that it is a compassionate and humane option for those who are suffering. It is important to consider all perspectives, including the patient’s autonomy and self-determination, the burden on healthcare resources, and the emotional burden on loved ones. Ultimately, it is important to approach the issue with empathy and compassion, and to ensure that any regulations and guidelines in place are done in a way that respects the patient’s dignity and rights.

Work Cited

Somerville, Margaret A. Death Talk: The Case against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UP, 2001. Print.

Rate this post