Ariel Sanfeliz Castillo

UNIVERSIDAD ANA G. MÉNDEZ EN BAYAMÓN

FUND SPEAK, READ & WRIT ENG II

Prof Iris Lopez Pagan

CRN 20056
Euthanasia
Euthanasia, that is, intentionally causing the death of someone who obviously requests it
because they are suffering from some incurable disease, is undoubtedly one of the best
debates that can be proposed, both from different points of view and from topic
controversy.

Should it be legalized? How can we be sure that the patient is fully sure of what he asks for?
Can it be applied in all cases? How should it be done? Who should cause the death of the
person? Does it violate the Hippocratic Oath of doctors? Undoubtedly many very enriching
topics of debate can be drawn.

Euthanasia appears as something “reasonable” in materialistic communities, which think of

human life as something effective and pleasurable, forgetting its intrinsic cost. Certain
territories have legalized or decriminalized euthanasia at the request of their nationals,
however imposing certain requirements to carry it out. This decision is justified by the
importance of euthanasia as a dignified death, under human conditions, without suffering,
misery or pain.

Whatever definition of euthanasia is recognized, the moral question is whether any

authority, private or public, can forcibly take the life of an innocent person, a child or
mature cripple, or an elderly or senile person. This choice forgets the unquestionable cost of
human life in any situation or environment.

The legalization of euthanasia leaves aside the resource provided by certain treatments,
which have the possibility of shortening life, and which are used to alleviate the pain of
patients with ethical and lawful results, as they do not directly seek to take life, but are the
result of an action that in itself is good and proper. Euthanasia, unlike these methods, is the
act by which someone is made to die in the simplest and most painless way possible. Keep
in mind that eu means good and thanatos means death.

In the ethical environment, euthanasia is the deliberate and painless murder, mainly
through gestures of a medical nature, of patients who say they are victims of unbearable
suffering or extreme disabilities, in order to free them from their situation and from the
society of a useless load. .

However, medical ethics establish that the physician can never recognize any reason that
justifies euthanasia, because this is an intrinsically immoral action: it is murder, although
subjectively it was performed out of compassion.
 The World Medical Society defines euthanasia as the deliberate act of ending a patient's
life, either at their own request or that of their family members, and classifies it as
unethical. Therefore, it is correct to examine the arguments presented in favor of this
practice in the light of ethics.

SOME ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF EUTHANASIA

The main arguments in favor of euthanasia are related to the right to a dignified life and
death, based on the autonomy of the patient, on their right not to suffer and, ultimately, to
demand euthanasia as a pious act or else to dispose of his life.

1. Right to a Dignified Life

This argument assumes that personal dignity in certain circumstances would be below what
could be required to live, which would allow euthanasia to be applied.

2. Right to a Dignified Death

If by dignified death is meant the immediate and definitive cessation of pain, then
euthanasia becomes the "easiest and most effective therapeutic". But, if, on the contrary,
death is assumed with greatness of spirit, facing it, exercising all our personal capacities in it,
it becomes the last step on the path towards human fulfillment; the latter if the certainty of
those who - within the framework of Christian doctrine - see in death the threshold that
leads them to the presence of God is not possessed.

3. The Autonomy of the Patient

Those laws that authorize euthanasia do so under the condition of ensuring the "express
and serious nature of the request" by the patient, as in the Spanish case. In this regard,
Herranz affirms that a passionate and moving request for death can be made by a patient
under the effects of chronic fatigue, tenacious insomnia, overwhelming dyspnea, nausea,
undiagnosed or poorly diagnosed depression. treated. An express and serious request for
death may be the consequence of incompetent treatment of pain and other symptoms, or
emotional abandonment by family members and caregivers. The patient can even do it as a
psychological and dramatic resource to focus the attention of others on himself, or as
retaliation for present neglect or past grievances. On the other hand, attending to the
request of the patient who sees death as the best alternative is to forget that choosing
death is not one option among many, but rather a way of suppressing all options.

4. Right to avoid pain

The physical pain of the patient can be effectively treated. Medicine has a complete
therapeutic arsenal capable of controlling pain in 95% of cases. Currently, the use of
analgesic drugs must be added to the so-called adjuvant agents, which come to neutralize or
alleviate the psychological and physical effects added to the pain symptoms.

5. The right to commit suicide

The problem here is that euthanasia is not suicide, but murder; it is an act that requires the
physician to decide whether the request is reasonable or, equivalently, whether death
should be offered to the patient. Here it is convenient to recall Pastor's assessments in the
sense that the right duty of life appears as the first and most important of all the rights that
a person has; a right that precedes respect for the independence of the individual, because
the main duty of their independence is to take responsibility for their own lives in the face
of everything. It follows from the foregoing that a patient's request for euthanasia and/or its
implementation by a doctor is not a right of the individual, but rather an arbitrary action
that encroaches on the entire personal being.

6. Euthanasia as a pious act

Shortening a person's life in order to save him from painful old age or pathology is an
argument that can convince with a share of sentimentality, but in itself it is the least
humane solution and one that exposes the impossibility of a doctor in attempting and
recognizing the natural death of a patient . This "pious act" also involves the doctor making
a value judgment about the patient's condition, which is subject to error. At this point,
allowing euthanasia would be tantamount to subjecting human life to a world of subjectivity
and relativism.

In general, there are 2 completely irreconcilable positions in relation to euthanasia:

biologism, which idolizes life above all and, therefore, defends the struggle for life at any
cost; and an elitism that would distinguish between "a real human person" and "only being
a biological person", leading to a discussion of in which cases certain beings can be
considered "real people" or not. This second position is dangerous because it can lead to the
desire to take the life of creatures that for whatever reason would be a burden. Between
the two positions, one could take an intermediate position that would consider each patient
as a full-fledged person (even if he is not aware of his position), without pretending to take
life into account as an absolute price and attempts to prolong it according to any criteria.

Bibliography
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zynv87h/revision/3#:~:text=Arguments%20for
%20euthanasia&text=Human%20beings%20should%20have%20the,the%20individual's
%20right%20to%20die.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml