Is Euthanasia Inherently Wrong Essay

Some might say that euthanasia is not the moral equivalent of murder as this action only affect an individual well-being, it is often valued for its own sake, as well as necessary for pursuit of all other goods within a life. Others might argue that euthanasia is the moral equivalent of murder as every human being has a natural inclination to continue living. Both arguments contrast in helping us evaluate more about euthanasia is the moral equivalent of murder or not. For me, I think euthanasia is inherently wrong as I think this action is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. In the following part, I will define what euthanasia is and base on J. Gay- William’s The Wrongfulness of euthanasia to explain why the thought is wrong.
As we all know, euthanasia is usually referred as painless death or mercy killing. It must be deliberate and intentional. Those process of helping a terminally ill person to die painlessly which defines as any action where a person is intentionally killed or letting die due to they believed that the individual would be better off dead than alive. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. The patient has to provide the relevant information that about medical condition, current prognosis, available alternative treatments, and the prognosis of each. Procedure should ensure patient’s request is stable and not because of any sudden sensible decision such as depression or anxiety and fully voluntary euthanasia.
According to J. Gay-Williams, he argues that euthanasia is inherently wrong in the following four supporting argument:
Firstly, every human being has a natural inclination to continue living.
Euthanasia is an act that intentionally taking the life of a person suffering from some illness or injury, from which recovery cannot reasonably be expected. In our daily lives, we exercise the caution and care necessary to protect ourselves. When we are cutting our capillaries seal shut, our blood clots, and fibrogen which is produced to start the process of healing the wound, euthanasia does not only violence to this natural goal of survival. He recognizes that human body and our patterns of behavioral responses make the continuation of life a natural goal, we recognize euthanasia sets us against our own nature. Besides, he points out that life is full of suffering. Suffering is a natural part of life with values for the individual and for others that we should not overlook and illness is a kind of suffering .Thus, euthanasia is not permissible. However, there is a difference between these examples with euthanasia. Let me use the above example again, when we are cut, it will definitely start the process of wound, and the suffering of cut will finally get over, but actually this case has some differences between euthanasia, euthanasia specifically means the terminal illness person that will only gain great suffering and has become border and they want to end their life because of hopeless, the extremely illness people injury can never be recovered or healed. Life is no longer to consider any benefits but it’s full of difficulties and suffering. The blood clot painfulness will just only hold a bit time but terminal illness people have to stand a long term torture and suffer. Blood will clot because it does not want us to suffer anymore. Same as euthanasia, euthanasia is performed to defer from suffering. Therefore, euthanasia does not contradict to the nature of continuation of life in the event should be taken as a last resort as a way to help the patient to avoid the unnecessary conscious
suffering.
In addition, he mentioned that there is the possibility that an experimental procedure or a hitherto technique will put us through. ‘Miracle’ will never be going to happen if euthanasia is performed. If we can take our life at any time or ask someone to take it, it might well incline us to give up so easily. And also, the doctor could make mistakes in diagnosis and prognosis, the development and advancement of medical technology and medicine could make ’incurable’ illness curable. Actually I agree that we should keep hope to our life but if we think that on another side, we will notice that improvement of medical treatment or pills cannot be developed within one or two days, it needs a very long term period of time to deal with. So, the physician will know the approximately date for the new medicine. Physicians should know whether there will be suitable new medicine for patient or not in a certain time. It is not a ‘miracle’. Chances of life should not be limited in if cures are within sight, the act of euthanasia is an passive act of the removal of chance of life. The third argument is that doctor should not be a healer as well as a killer. Consenting euthanasia is incompatible with a doctor’s duty as a healer to care for patient, and save and protect life, patient will thus lose trust in doctors or medical service. Actually the definition of euthanasia said that the person whose life is taken must be someone who is believed to be suffering from some disease or injury from which recovery cannot reasonably be expected. Letting a person die by using fatal injection have no moral difference with killing a people directly. If the patient wants to have voluntary active euthanasia so that he or she should not feel fear and also the patient trust the doctor so he or she would voluntarily require it, the patient’s trust should be increased but not diminished. The last argument is ‘slippery slope’, if voluntary active euthanasia is permissible, then other people may also ask for euthanasia permission without understanding the happening is going to, bring out the following consequences, then from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia, from adults to children, from terminally ill to chronically ill. We cannot deny the possibility that it may happen but until now, there are not any statistics or evidence to prove it. And secondly, since on any reasonable assessment there will be both good and bad consequences, there is no absolute in the world. It can be said that the argument is hasty generalization.
In conclusion, every human being has a natural inclination to continue living. Euthanasia is the moral equivalent of murder as we should respect our life and no one can waste their life.

Reference:
James Rachels, Active and Passive Euthanasia
J. Gay- Williams, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia