Euthanasia

Joachim Kikuni

Raquel Moreira

Discourse II

11/29/2018

A point in time where and when the desire of death is more sustainable than the call to life. To what extent is life worth living when you have nothing to live for, worst yet, without the feasible ability to live life to the bare minimum of your under glorified wish. Sitting on the hand, wouldn’t you give rest to an already departed soul? According to an organisation that advocates for the legalization of euthanasia “A peaceful death is everyone’s right”. Which means nobody should be suffering knowing that they will never get better for the rest of their lives. And I think most people would agree because that's like keeping food that is already spoiled. For the good of the food, it’s better to throw it away when it still looks a little better rather than waiting when it’s starting to smell and looking bad. The same thing goes for human beings. How could one force someone to live when they no longer feel like they’re alive?

The term euthanasia is of Greek origin and it means "good death", that is to say "a sweet death without suffering". In an article called Ancient Greek Philosophy, it says that was considered that a bad thing was not worthy of being lived, that is why each person could ask that one shorten his days, if that was his will. Originally, euthanasia refers to all means and remedies to relieve or abbreviate or avoid agony to a person at the end of life. In a contemporary and more limited acceptance, it is the practice of causing the death of an individual suffering from an incurable disease that inflicts upon him intolerable moral and / or physical suffering, especially by or under the control of a physician. There is also talk of assisted suicide when it comes to helping someone who wants it, and whatever their motives, to die. It should be noted that in the definition given by the Ethics Committee (according to which it is an act of a third party that deliberately ends the life of a person with the intention of putting an end to a situation judged intolerable), there is no mention of any request or agreement of the patient. It is also necessary to differentiate between "passive" euthanasia and "active" euthanasia, both of which are severely punished. Active euthanasia involves the act of a third party who administers to a patient a lethal substance for the purpose of causing death immediately. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, refers to the renunciation of drug therapy, the interruption of artificial nutrition or hydration, or the administration of opioids or sedatives at high doses, which can plunge the patient into coma and provoke death after a few days.

The reason why I think euthanasia should be legalized is because life is not an obligation. According to an article written by Suresh Bada Math and Santosh K in 2012 on the right to life vs the light to die, “Many patients in a persistent vegetative state or else in chronic illness, do not want to be a burden on their family members. Euthanasia can be considered as a way to upheld the ‘Right to life’ by honouring ‘Right to die’ with dignity”. They are basically saying that if nobody should be forced to die then nobody should be forced to live either. The country should not stop anyone from ending their lives for a reasonable cause such as being in lots of pain. In my opinion that is the same thing as killing them except in this case you’re just hurting them before you kill them, which sounds even worse. Nobody wants to die hooked up to a bunch of machines or find themselves forced to stay alive when they know their time has come. The law does not require anyone to undergo treatment. A patient who has his faculties or the agent of a patient who is unable to decide has the right to accept or refuse any treatment as well as to demand that it be interrupted.
        The denial of extraordinary or disproportionate care, when it is too painful in relation to the expected benefits, is not euthanasia because it is not the intention to cause death but simply to allow the person to die naturally; Euthanasia is intended to cause death: the patient does not die naturally but before his time, killed by another human being. If a disproportionate treatment is interrupted or not administered, the cause of death is the illness or condition of the patient; in euthanasia, the cause of death is the injection, pill, or other lethal means that is used. There is a big difference between letting someone die and killing them. Artificial nutrition and hydration are considered ordinary care - not as treatment - and should, in principle, be provided to the patient. Indeed. water and food are necessities of life that are not used to treat a particular disease. No one should die for being deprived of water or food. In some circumstances, however, as at the end of life, the body may no longer be able to assimilate water and food, or the procedures used may become too overwhelming. In such a context, artificial nutrition and hydration can be interrupted.

...