Give your opinion with the arguments for and against euthanasia.
1. Introduction
2. the concept of euthanasia
3. the type of euthanasia
4. an argument for and against euthanasia
1) an affirmative opinion
2) a dissenting opinion
5. my opinion
6. Conclusion
1. Introduction
In modern society, life expectancy has increased significantly due to the rapid development of medicine, but on the one hand, it has faced ethical concerns about human life. One of them is euthanasia, and the issue of euthanasia has rarely reached a compromise. Proponents of the euthanasia system argue that "artificial prolongation of life places an excessive burden not only on the patient himself, but also on the family, medical staff, and society, and furthermore, everyone has the right to make their own decisions, including death." On the other hand, those who oppose euthanasia argue, "When a doctor intervenes in killing a patient, social problems such as the problem of misuse or abuse of life-sustaining treatment or the patient's distrust of a doctor may arise, and life belongs to God, so humans cannot artificially shorten it."
Therefore, in this report, I would like to examine the arguments of each argument on the definition and type of euthanasia and the pros and cons of euthanasia, and present my opinions based on this.
2. the concept of euthanasia
It refers to a medical practice that artificially shortens lives and causes death in order to alleviate the pain of critically ill patients who have no chance of recovery. Although the meaning is not completely the same, it is usually also called optometrist or dignified death. Euthanasia is divided into active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act of artificially accelerating death through morphine administration at the request of a distressed patient, and passive euthanasia refers to stopping nutrition and drug administration, which are essential for life support, eventually leading to death.
3. the type of euthanasia
1) active euthanasia
Active euthanasia is a form of euthanasia in which a person performing euthanasia actively performs specific actions with the intention of shortening the life of terminally ill patients, patients with very severe pain, or unconscious patients. For example, a direct injection of a lethal dose of a drug or poison leads to the patient's death.
2) passive euthanasia
Passive euthanasia refers to the act of temporarily blocking the process of death when the person performing euthanasia enters a process where treatment for the disease is impossible due to the cause of the disease that the patient was experiencing, and when the person performing euthanasia enters a process where it is impossible to recover even though they have the ability to temporarily block the process of death, neglect it even though they have the ability to survive, or remove the ventilator of a patient who is extending his or her life on a ventilator. In other words, it stops the artificial extension of inactive life.
3) merciful euthanasia
Since life is meaningless in a state where enduring pain becomes everything in one's daily life, shortening that life is rather a merciful act. It can be said to be a semi-painter.
4) a dignified euthanasia
Since irrational human life is a meaningless survival, life must be shortened to protect the dignity of character.
5) selective euthanasia
If a living thing is sometimes extremely weakened due to illness or accident, the mind and body are extremely weakened, and the community is under a lot of pressure, and if the sacrifice can no longer be tolerated, the subject of life, which is a great burden, is rejected as meaningless survival. Abandonment euthanasia has a strong meaning.
4. an argument for and against euthanasia
1) an affirmative opinion
(1) Every human being has the right to decide his own life. All human lives are dignified. Therefore, the right to maintain dignity as a human being must be guaranteed.
There are people who suffer more from illness than death. Disrespecting their opinions, which are difficult to lead a life, can rather be a cruel act of trampling on people's rights.
(2) In modern times, healthy life expectancy and well-dying are more important than simply living a long life. In proportion to the dramatically increased life expectancy, humans want a higher quality of life and a comfortable end to that life rather than a simple quantitative extension.
In the case of time-limited patients who do not improve their quality of life even if they provide maximum treatment services, most people complain of comfortable death after having time to say goodbye to their families rather than increasing the time they suffer from life-sustaining treatment. They value 'quality life' more than their own life preservation. Even if you live for six months, a life that is less painful is better than a life that you suffer in a sick bed for 12 months with meaningless life-sustaining treatment, and a high-quality death is indispensable for a high-quality life.
(3) Many people are in favor of it, and an increasing number of countries are officially administering euthanasia. In 2019, the Seoul Newspaper and polling agency said that 80% of the people agreed to euthanasia based on 1,000 adults in Korea. In addition, euthanasia is a global trend, with Austria becoming the fourth EU member state to submit a bill to allow euthanasia in early 2022.
(4) From the perspective of the family, the burden can increase. The mental and economic burden will inevitably increase from the perspective of families who are caring for patients whose conditions are difficult to improve with treatment over the long term. From the patient's point of view, if you see your family struggling with your disease, you may suffer more than the disease.
In fact, there are cases where they make extreme choices, saying that it seems to cause trouble to their families among dying patients. In this case, it will inevitably come as a bigger injury to both the patient and the family. Therefore, in order to avoid this situation, it would be right to allow a "comfort death" that can give time to say hello to the family and allows patients to die comfortably on their own.
2) a dissenting opinion
(1) A person's life, which should be respected for any reason, may be too easily given up because of simple social and economic requirements to find a suitable way or just because of immediate pain. In particular, religious communities who believe that individuals' sovereignty of life should never be enforced in this way, or bioethics who say that just giving up treatment of diseases that can be overcome by medical approaches and dying early will eventually be toxic to themselves.
(2) All human lives are precious. Life is precious, and the right to life must be protected. Human life is something that no one can take away. If euthanasia is allowed, it should be prohibited because it can create a social atmosphere that belittles human life.
(3) There may be a possibility of a doctor misdiagnosis. Although it is not common, there is a possibility of a doctor's misdiagnosis, which can lead to death in a person who can survive intactly.
(4) There may be cases of abuse of euthanasia. If euthanasia is allowed, it can turn into a social problem, such as killing people for money, such as the case of a wife who killed her husband for insurance money. Therefore, I oppose it because it is likely to be abused by someone.
5. my opinion
In conclusion, I think euthanasia should be allowed. However, it should be allowed only for passive euthanasia, not active euthanasia. When a man is born, he will die anyway. If so, I think about whether we have the right to delay the patient's suffering while discussing the dignity of life without countermeasures at a time when a person suffering from terrible pain is begging to be killed. It is a question to think about whether it is close to pretentious self-satisfaction to lay out only one's ideals and leave it to die under the weight of pain.
The financial pain of families due to the burden of hospital expenses is also great. It would be hypocrisy in the end to claim that there is no way to help economically or to alleviate the pain, and that society should just let it live and take care of it.
We can supplement the negative aspects of the opposition to euthanasia. I think the patient's own right to life should be respected so that he doesn't get scared of maggots.
6. Conclusion
Until now, euthanasia is legally prohibited in most countries. In only a few regions, eight U.S. states, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, New Jersey, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, and Switzerland, are authorized in a way that does not punish them if they are legal or meet certain requirements.
Euthanasia is the English word for 樂死, which translates directly into Greek, meaning "beautiful death." Modern "Utanasia" refers to an artificial act that directly or indirectly causes a living organism to die without pain against a living organism that is deemed meaningless in treatment and life support due to an incurable serious illness, etc., greatly deviating from the meaning of the original language. I don't think there's any reason to ban euthanasia in its original meaning. Because you have the right to your own life. If only the patient's sincerity can be guaranteed, I think euthanasia can play a role in protecting the dignity of life more.
