Reflection On Physician Assisted Suicide
During my first summer break in high school, I went to a three-day long debate boot camp. I was really excited because it was the first time I was participating in that sort of event. On the first day, I and my friends introduced ourselves to participants from different schools. Among them, a guy caught my attention because he had a British accent so, I was keen to debate with him. Soon after the introduction session, we were assigned into six groups and Paul (the guy with the accent) was in a different group.
The camp went unexpectedly delightful. As cliché as it sounds, the best is saved for the last; my last day was the most memorable and entertaining. My team had a debate against Paul’s team on the prompt, "Should euthanasia be legal?"
Having been raised in a Hindu family, I had learned that taking a life is not morally justifiable. Killing someone for to protect one’s dharma or upholding the righteousness, however, is permissible. An act of killing a bed-ridden person was not an acceptable excuse of safeguarding righteousness. Hence, my upbringing had established the notion that physician-assisted suicide is a sinful act and sullies one’s dharma. …show more content…
However, my debate with Paul made me ponder upon my belief.
Before the debate — no matter what supporting points he gives, it is still a murder — I thought. Until then, I was against the objectives of euthanasia. But my debate with Paul partially changed my view. According to him, we can never know the pain and difficulty of patients who choose euthanasia. Moreover, they are aware of the fact that their malady has no further treatment. Hence it would be fair to completely end the disease instead of dealing with the intractable cures. Of course, I was startled when he said this because I do not think anyone has the right to take such a huge
decision.
Similarly, Paul strongly emphasized that they have the choice whether to have a quick death or a death full of suffering. At that moment, I told him that one should not just decide to die and fade away from their family while their loved ones and family are all involved in the dying process as to consider them for murder. But his team mentioned that there are families that cannot afford the treatment. Hence, euthanasia was their last option; it would reduce the financial burden. Nevertheless, he also mentioned that physician-assisted suicide should be that last option available to them only if any other treatment is hopeless.
Obviously, I did not leave my stance during the debate; I kept on throwing arguments against the theme. I even got applause when I said the world would not have been the same if Stephen Hawking had given up hope of living and had agreed to patient-directed dying. Then again — I was thinking that euthanasia can be defended in the name of dharma if it is performed as an act of compassion: to give a quick death instead of letting the patient suffer — which I kept to myself. It was Paul who made me see the other side of the coin; assisted death is merciful than letting someone undergo anguish.
To be honest, I lost the debate competition, but I learned more from his ideas and experiences which ultimately made me realize that learning something is more important than winning a competition. My debate with him helped me understand a nuanced perspective on this issue — one I would not have understood had I stayed too rigid with my viewpoint.
The camp went unexpectedly delightful. As cliché as it sounds, the best is saved for the last; my last day was the most memorable and entertaining. My team had a debate against Paul’s team on the prompt, "Should euthanasia be legal?"
Having been raised in a Hindu family, I had learned that taking a life is not morally justifiable. Killing someone for to protect one’s dharma or upholding the righteousness, however, is permissible. An act of killing a bed-ridden person was not an acceptable excuse of safeguarding righteousness. Hence, my upbringing had established the notion that physician-assisted suicide is a sinful act and sullies one’s dharma. …show more content…
However, my debate with Paul made me ponder upon my belief.
Before the debate — no matter what supporting points he gives, it is still a murder — I thought. Until then, I was against the objectives of euthanasia. But my debate with Paul partially changed my view. According to him, we can never know the pain and difficulty of patients who choose euthanasia. Moreover, they are aware of the fact that their malady has no further treatment. Hence it would be fair to completely end the disease instead of dealing with the intractable cures. Of course, I was startled when he said this because I do not think anyone has the right to take such a huge
decision.
Similarly, Paul strongly emphasized that they have the choice whether to have a quick death or a death full of suffering. At that moment, I told him that one should not just decide to die and fade away from their family while their loved ones and family are all involved in the dying process as to consider them for murder. But his team mentioned that there are families that cannot afford the treatment. Hence, euthanasia was their last option; it would reduce the financial burden. Nevertheless, he also mentioned that physician-assisted suicide should be that last option available to them only if any other treatment is hopeless.
Obviously, I did not leave my stance during the debate; I kept on throwing arguments against the theme. I even got applause when I said the world would not have been the same if Stephen Hawking had given up hope of living and had agreed to patient-directed dying. Then again — I was thinking that euthanasia can be defended in the name of dharma if it is performed as an act of compassion: to give a quick death instead of letting the patient suffer — which I kept to myself. It was Paul who made me see the other side of the coin; assisted death is merciful than letting someone undergo anguish.
To be honest, I lost the debate competition, but I learned more from his ideas and experiences which ultimately made me realize that learning something is more important than winning a competition. My debate with him helped me understand a nuanced perspective on this issue — one I would not have understood had I stayed too rigid with my viewpoint.