Euthanasia and Society

Euthanasia

According to many philosophers, euthanasia is only morally permissible if it serves to benefit the person that is about to die. It is a belief that is widely held by many that euthanasia serves to benefit the person who dies. Kantian ethics models dictate that; voluntary and non-voluntary acts of euthanasia are morally permissible; however, involuntary acts of euthanasia are never morally permissible. Of the many factors that influence a person’s decision to engage in euthanasia, poverty and in particular the inability to acquire and afford medical care and medicine, is the greatest of them all.

Euthanasia seems to be an ethical issue, which is widely in debate. The word comes from two Greek words ‘Eu’, which means easy or well, and ‘Thanatos’ which means death. Today, it is the intentional or premature ending of a person’s life by withholding care or by a direct intervention. Thus, it can be voluntary, wherein either the consent is implied or expressed, or it can be involuntary. The sanctity of life and the responsibility of the state to protect its people as well as the right of an individual to decide whether and when they are to die are the issues in the debate concerning euthanasia.

There are groups such as Hemlock Society and the Final Exit Network, which are pro-euthanasia. Such groups work to enforce legislation, which would give individuals the right to decide when and how they will die. These groups are of the belief that the rights of a person are absolute, and therefore the state should respect the rights of an individual who wants to end their life if they are in constant pain or if they are terminally sick. Today the states Washington and Oregon and the countries Belgium and Holland are pro-euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a difficult and complex issue to understand, partially due to religion, government and our own ethical motives behind it. When someone is terminally ill and death seems to be a better option compared to life, the sick tend...