Euthanasia is the ending of a life of someone very sick to relieve him or her from suffering. Actually, euthanasia is normally performed by medical experts on ailing individuals with an incurable condition. Although, though there are other situations whereby some people need their life to be terminated (BANOVIĆ et al. 173). In most instances, euthanasia is normally executed at the ailing person’s will and request, but there sometime they may be too sick such that the relatives, the court or doctors make the decision for euthanasia to be executed; that is passive and active euthanasia. However, euthanasia has been a big topic of debate on the grounds of its morality. Many people believe that euthanasia belongs to a different moral category from murder or suicide. Murder is an intentional termination of one’s life and is unlawful. Therefore, this paper will discuss about euthanasia, determine why it is considered to belong to a different moral category from murder or suicide and also make a stand whether it is actually different from murder.
Euthanasia is mostly assumed to belong to a different moral category from murder because it branded as a merciful killing which is showing empathy to the sick individual and suffering. Therefore, society tends to accept passive and active euthanasia given that some conditions are met. Euthanasia can only be executed by a medical expert and is only legal for medical experts to perform euthanasia. Based on the principle of well-being, euthanasia is considered to be morally right compared to murder (KAPPEL 6). Tish principle implies that the patients’ wellbeing should be promoted if not for its own sake, then due to the derivative significance of well-being. A medical practitioner must ensure the wellbeing of a sick patient in the hospital. They are obliged to offer the best treatment and care to treat and improve the health of the patient. And in a situation of a patient in a critical condition with an incurable sickness that has subjected the patient into pain and a lot of suffering (KAPPEL 6). With guidance from the principle of well-being, the medical practitioner has to relieve the patient from the endless pain and suffering since there are no other means of curing the patient. Therefore, it will be justifiable when the sick person requests for euthanasia or the relatives decide on the patients’ behalf after consulting from the doctor to perform euthanasia to the patient.
Moreover, this killing is painless. This is a merciful killing that will relieve the patient from endless pain and suffering. This is a show of empathy and care to the patient rather than leaving the patient to endure endless suffering. Based on this, euthanasia is often considered to be morally right. This principle makes most people accept euthanasia. Euthanasia is considered morally right based on the utilitarian argument by James Bentham which is not based on pleasing God or rather being loyal to the theoretical guidelines but instead focuses on enhancing happiness as well as minimizing pain and suffering (Crocker 6). Essentially, the utilitarian theory argues that euthanasia is morally right since it minimized the misery everybody is involved in the caregivers, the patient, family and also friends. Actually, the utilitarian principle does not have flaws whenever it is applied to some situations, for instance; the utilitarian approach’s argument would be that a peeping Ben is not considered immoral suppose he is not caught, this means that suppose his victim was not aware, then no suffering occurred and certainly is pleasure is all that counted. Although, the majority would have admitted that other values like justice, freedom, as well as individual rights is equally significant in this situation (Crocker 6). This applies to euthanasia, what matters is relieving the patient of suffering. Euthanasia is protected by law in countries that have been legalized as well as protecting the patient’s rights and also maintaining justice. By denying the patient to decide the time to end his or her life is denying him or her freedom. Everyone has freedom of will and make personal decisions (Crocker 7). In the case of euthanasia, the utilitarian approach states that in an instance that a terminally sick patient is left to live and to die slowly through a painful death, suffering increases for everybody involved. It is therefore important to consider relieving all these suffering the patient and all those affected.
Both euthanasia and murder terminate a person’s life. Therefore, euthanasia either passive or active is grave evil and is immoral and is actually in the same moral category as suicide and abortion, which is murder. Murder is the conscious and intentional termination of an innocent person’s life. Any act that involves taking someone’s life is murder. This is morally wrong as religiously the bible says, though shall not kill (WIDDERSHOVEN 96). Morally, there is no difference between euthanasia, murder or suicide because they both involve terminating a person’s life intentionally, therefore, placing under the same moral category. Life is sacred and precious, and no one should take another one’s life. The bible has indicated under the fifth commandment that it is a sin and morally wrong for a person to take the life of another person intentionally. Based on intent and consciousness, euthanasia, murder, abortion, and suicide are intentional acts of termination of another person’s life consciously. Even though most people have considered euthanasia as a merciful killing since it helps to deprive off the sick person from pain, in terms of moral, it is morally wrong because taking someone’s life at all cost is wrong and unacceptable (WIDDERSHOVEN 97). Euthanasia is legalized by many countries, but some have illegalized it. However, religions strongly condemn euthanasia and do not accept it at all because it is against their religious teachings. Therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong just as murder or suicide and they fall under the same moral category.
To sum it all, euthanasia involves the termination of another person life just like murder or suicide. However, murder tends to be unexpected, brutal and illegal, unlike euthanasia which planned, based on the individual’s will, relatives’ decision, or the court’s decision. On moral grounds, most people tend to consider euthanasia as being morally right and different from murder. Since euthanasia sympathizes and empathizes with the patient by relieving of suffering, most people argue that this makes it be morally right. Whereas, murder increases suffering since it is an injustice way of ending one’s life causing suffering to the individual and those affected such as family and friends of the victim. But, in reality, euthanasia does not belong to a different moral category from that of murder or suicide. The fact is that, euthanasia belongs to the same moral category with murder, suicide or abortion since they all involve taking away life.