Why Is Euthanasia Ethically Wrong?

Bioethics and Medical Ethics The field of ethics has expanded over the past centuries to cover many aspects of our everyday lives. From our very own personal lives, social interactions, business interactions, to interactions in many other spheres, we find that considerations of morality do affect the decisions we make and the actions that we take. Oftentimes, moral decisions and actions do not turn out to be as obvious as we may think as we end up getting caught up in conflict between two or more decisions of action, each decision having moral reasoning supporting to support it. This kind of situation is what is referred to as a moral dilemma. Fields of biology and medicine, like other fields are also subject to ethical considerations and

There has been fierce debate around the issue and to date, there seems to be no common ground for proponents of voluntary euthanasia as a human right (to decide to be assisted to die) and those who see it as a morally vile and categorically unacceptable practice. Perhaps, I should start by defining euthanasia and then go on to lay out the 5 necessary conditions for physician-assisted suicide or mercy killing as it is sometimes variably referred to. I will also look at the 5 arguments that opponents have put forward against the practice. The WordWeb English Dictionary defines Euthanasia as “the act of killing someone painlessly (especially someone suffering from an incurable illness).” Other sources then go further to bring out the element of the suffering person voluntarily requesting to be assisted to die. The 5 arguments for voluntary euthanasia that have been advanced by proponents

One is unable to end his / her life even if one strongly wishes to die, giving rise to the need to assist one to die;

Opponents of euthanasia on the other hand have advanced the following arguments against the practice:

i. People should not be restricted to the choice of voluntary euthanasia when modern medicine provides improved care and treatment which is capable of alleviating pain and suffering; ii. It is difficult to ascertain the competence and ‘voluntary’ nature of a dying person’s wish to die due to several factors. Temporary despair and the inability to think rationally due to severe pain and suffering have been cited as some of the factors; iii. The doctrine of double effect holds that acting in ways which can have life-shortening and fatal consequences may be permissible on condition that there is no active intent to cause death. iv. There are times when one can simply ‘allow’ a dying person to die rather than actively killing them. This can be done for example by stopping treatment when it seems probable that the continued administration of treatment will be futile. It is argued though that there is sometimes a very thin blurred line between killing and ‘allowing’ someone to die. The intention in both cases might just be the