Improvement in the health technology and modern medicine
have greatly prolonged the life expectancy of human beings than in the past
years. However, the emergency of
resistance chronic degenerative diseases as Alzheimer’s calls for
controversial debates. Uncommon issues in modern health care have awakened so
much disagreement and so is the problem of Euthanasia, (Louhiala et al, 353). Currently, there is lack of undisputed
understanding of good death, as a result, wide value conclusions have been made.
Additionally, it does not tolerate moral irrelevance but sparks a range of
strong emotions. As the conception is about life and death, the fight for
freedom, self-worth, self-sufficiency and individual rights does not allow for inaction
hence affecting the same parties in the same dimension (Minocha et al, 26).
The debate involving the ethical acceptability of
euthanasia and its legalization are features of scholars’ conflicts in the
health morals. According to Minocha et al (25), Euthanasia is defined as the
deliberate termination of an individual lifetime by a third party, usually
medical personnel. Some people argue if Euthanasia was legalized, a large
number of people would benefit as the number of people suffering from chronical
illness keeps rising daily (Haimowitz et al, 13).
On the contrary legalizing euthanasia would be a start of a greasy rope for the
elderly, people living with disabilities (Minocha et al, 25). However, the
decision of euthanasia among people with Alzheimer’s disease is not about
correctness. Although it is hard to decide to die in my opinion, it is even
harder to choose to live
Commonly, victims are given a chance
to make decisions to agree to euthanasia or the rights are passed to their
caretakers. According to Fitzpatrick
(579), voluntary euthanasia occurs deliberately from the victims, the person is
painlessly put to death by an individual through their consent. On the other
hand, non-voluntarily assisted suicide refers to the patient unable to make a
decision for the termination of death and such decisions are made by other
parties on their behalf. In the case of voluntary euthanasia, the patient
should be competent, request for the procedure and suffers from a chronic
illness that causes physical and biological pain. According to Minocha et al
(26), the physician to assume the procedure should declare to the victim their
conditions as well as the expected life expectancy. Further, the physician
should share the findings with another counterpart for deliberations of the
condition in order to reach to a conclusion that there are no other
possibilities. For the minors, the decision should be passed to the parents or
guardians for determination and approval.
Globally, Alzheimer’s disease is
classified as the sixth killing disease, (Hess
et al, 55). According to Minocha et al (27), two percent of the Holland
population annually die due to Alzheimer, mostly the elderly. Further, it is
observed that most women succumb to deaths due to dementia than their male counterparts.
According to Briffa (118),Alzheimer is a
permanent, advanced brain disorder that leads to memory destruction leading to
poor thinking skills and inability to perform simple tasks. The disease is the common cause of dementia
among the elderly and the early symptoms appear in the mid-60s. Dementia is
characterized by loss of rational functional-thinking, recalling and reasoning
and social abilities, persons suffering from dementia find it hard to navigate
through their daily tasks and as such they completely depend on others (Haimowitz et al, 15). Treating Alzheimer’s is
challenging, and it is questionable whether any action or additional
involvement will successfully treat it. Presently, methods focus to maintain
the psychological and behavioral function as well as improving the way of life
(Briffa, 118).
First,
Legalizing euthanasia for patients suffering from Alzheimer in Holland is
inevitable. According to Hess (56), Mercy
killing is a form of insurance policy that ensure that no one must die a
painful and lives with unwavering suffering. Alzheimer characterized by memory
loss, difficulties in communication and unpredictable conduct. As a result, the
disease demeans ones dignity and peace of mind, (Haimowitz
et al, 15). Therefore, mercy killing help protect the affected from
unfair death as well as lost self-possession, as a result, they die peaceful
and with dignity. In the situation of double effect, when euthanizing a client,
the doctor intends to cut life of the patient and prevent severe pain. However,
in some states the medical prescription aimed to release the pain can also lead
to death, in turn this forms the principle of double effect.
Second,
every individual has the right to choose how long to live and the quality of
life at the heart of every problem. These opinions raise interesting questions
as to the right of freedom, autonomy, and self-esteem, (Louhiala, 354). Alzheimer is perhaps is the worst associations
with its attitude and evolution being predictable and fatal. With no possible
treatment of the disease, it takes away the emotional and financial capacities
of both the victims and the family. Consequently, the patients hardly bring to
mind their lost self. Additionally, their caretakers are psychologically and
emotionally drained to see their loved ones suffer. Giving a chance of mercy
killing relieves the pain to both the victims and their loved ones, (Hess et
al, 56).
Third, Alzheimer calls for high medical attention and
care among them assisted feeding and home-based care (Minocha et al 28). In
such, victims are required to administer drugs that help regulate
neurotransmitters and the brain chemical that relays messages among neurons.
The effectiveness of the drugs is subjective and time-limited. For instance,
Donepezil (Aricept) is an expensive drug used to regulate both moderate and
severe conditions. Mostly, the financial burden of acquiring such medication
have transferred the caregivers and the government indirectly (Minocha et al,
27). Eventually, when death comes, it is a matter of nature taking its course
but leaving the caregiver struggling for long. According to, Fitzpatrick (584),eighty percent most families
who nurtured their Alzheimer patients to their natural deaths are left bankrupt
with bigger loans burden. However, by allowing the victim or the caregiver to
initiate the procedure helps bridge the gap by reducing the conflict of
interest such as inheritance and medical bills, (Hess et al, 56). Further
still, most people succumb to dementia at the old age, at such ages the persons
are little or no productive to the economy, hence there is no sense to allowing
them to suffer and their productive ages are almost over, (Fitzpatrick, 584).
Lastly,
heated discussion has been raised over human issues surrounding quantity,
quality of life and compassion. AccordingBriffa
(119), to it is believed that it is kinder to allow people to die with
dignity than having them live in pain. Agreeing to Minocha (26), a preference
is attached to the quality of life over the life expectancy. A distortion in
the quality of life is irreversible and is associated with the damaged image.
Improving the quality of life involves palliative care and hospices attempts
for victims endangered to life-threatening illness as a way of controlling pain.
Nevertheless, fewer scenarios have been estimated of individuals whose pain can
be eased with drugs.
Despite
the advantages of Euthanasia, Most countries have illegalized the practice on
suicidal grounds. Euthanasia is claimed to be murder and its legalization leads
to more and more killing and life destruction. It is further argued that the
principle rule of a drug is to heal rather than harm (Haimowitz, 14). Additionally, the exercise is a continual
violation of hypocritical doctor’s oath of safeguarding life as well as killing
patient trust in the medical field. Further arguments point out that it is
pointless to exercise euthanasia because modern drugs and hospitals are avenues
to improving people’s life. Furthermore, Authorizing euthanasia represents a
message that it’s worthless to live. AccordingBriffa
(119), to persons who request mercy killing rarely want to die but their
psychological being suppressed and it would rather require more attention. The
opponents also argues that permitting euthanasia would diminish respect for
life. For instance, people with a terminal illness would feel pressured to
conduct the procedure in order to save the families and friends the burden of
health resources (Hess et al, 57). Moreover, a loophole has been cited between
collaboration between physicians and third parties based on the conflict of
interests of the victims. For instance administering the lethal drugs with
minor conditions for inheritance or prevention of justice, (Minocha et al,27).
Conversely, the benefits associated with assisted suicide exceeds the
limitations associated.
In
conclusion, it should be commonly accepted as an expression of autonomy, a
person ought to make independent choices on how to live and on how to die.
Therefore, a person is free to decline to medical assistance and prefer to die
to protect self-dignity. The psychological, emotional and mental and behavioral
changes as experienced by people living with Alzheimer calls for the
legalization of the process of euthanasia. By helping the people with Alzheimer
to cut their life short brings greater benefits to both the caregiver as well
as the patient. The general rule is that no one should die in agony and
suffering as well it is arguably not worth also to live in pain and suffering.
Further still, forcing people to live against their wish is a violation of
their right and freedom. The financial burden associated with improving the
quality of life stretches much beyond the victims as well the government, hence
euthanasia is a possible solution.
Work cited.
Briffa, Norman. “Surgery for Degenerative
Mitral Valve Disease: Rates of Repair Are Improving,
but There Is Still Wide Variation.”BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol.
342, no. 7789, 2011, pp. 118–119.
FITZPATRICK,
KEVIN. “Qualified to Speak: Rush Rhees on the (Vexed) Subject of Euthanasia.” Philosophy, vol. 88, no. 346,
2013, pp. 575–592.
Haimowitz,
Stephan, et al. “Uninformed Decisionmaking The Case of Surrogate Research Consent.” The Hastings Center Report,
vol. 27, no. 6, 1997, pp. 9–16.
Hess,
Laurie, et al. “Euthanasia: Considerations, Concerns, and Complications.” Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, vol. 27, no. 1, 2013, pp.
53–58.
Louhiala,
Pekka, et al. “Finnish Physicians' Attitudes towards Active Euthanasia Have
Become More Positive over the Last 10
Years.” Journal of Medical
Ethics, vol. 41, no. 4, 2015, pp.
353–355.
MINOCHA,
ANEETA A, et al. “Euthanasia: A Social Science Perspective.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 46, no. 49, 2011, pp. 25–28.
