Should Euthanasia be Legal?

Should Euthanasia be Legal?
Student Name
University
Course
Professor Name
Date
Should Euthanasia be Legal?
Whether euthanasia should be legal remains controversial several decades after it was first raised. The controversies and disagreements seem to arise from how to define euthanasia and the moral philosophies adopted in doing so. Today, one may ask whether this question will ever be fully answered, considering the diverse views on the issue. This essay will attempt to answer this question by paying attention to the arguments made so far from a philosophical perspective. The point that will be emphasized is that if the debaters can agree on the extent to which the right to decide should rest with the patient, the answer to whether euthanasia should be legal becomes simpler.
To fully understand the concept of euthanasia and the development of the debates surrounding it, it is important to refer to its historical context. According to Emanuel (1994), euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide date from ancient Greece and Rome after scientists had developed ether. As a result, physicians started to advocate using anesthetics to relieve the pain associated with death. Samuel Williams first proposed, in 1870, using these substances and morphine to end a patient’s life intentionally. The following 35 years were followed by debates surrounding ethics and euthanasia, which spread across the United Kingdom and the United States. These debates resulted in the 1906 bill in Ohio to legalize euthanasia. The bill was defeated by raising concerns similar to those contemporarily raised. However, some of the observations made during the defeat of this bill included that public interest is not necessarily tied to the advances in biomedical technology. The debates also occur when the authority of physicians over medical decisions is challenged. Before exploring the moral philosophies that perpetuate the debate, it is important to acknowledge that physicians can develop advanced mechanisms of ending life painlessly does not necessarily mean that public morals can be swayed. This is despite the essence of euthanasia being relieving patients from pain and agony associated with chronic illnesses.
Patients with chronic illnesses often face prolonged pain and suffering, leading to eventual and anticipated death. In such a case, mercy killing seemingly becomes an attractive option for patients and their families. The physicians are faced with a choice of whether to actively kill the patient or withdraw medication to allow the patient to die. This scenario leads to the debates on active versus passive euthanasia. The distinction between the two forms a critical part of medical ethics. The idea that often prevails is that, in some cases, it is permissible to withhold treatment to allow a patient to die. However, it is not permissible to take an action that is directly designed to kill the patient (Rachels, 1986). In this case, killing and letting die are perceived to be different concepts with different moral implications. Killing is often regarded as unethical regardless of the situation. At the same time, some arguments have been made that continuing medication intended to prolong the life of a patient who is certain to die is e...