Psychology

Euthanasia or mercy killing as it is often called  is the act of deliberately killing a person for that his or her own benefit. It is carried out when a dying person requests for it, although in some instances it may be carried out on a dying person who cannot be able to make such a request. However, there some other cases where patients want to die, though they may not necessarily be having terminal illnesses (BBC, 2010). Euthanasia has been a topic of debate for many years, with no universally agreed compromise. Those against euthanasia have over the years taken firm stands and, in fact, it is those who argue in its favor who tend to shift ground and join the anti-euthanasia camp (Craine, 2009).  It is no surprise that euthanasia is illegal in most countries, considering the ethical and legal issues involved (Eads, 1997).  Euthanasia should never be an option for terminally ill patients as their lives are of great value despite the fact that they may be dying.

Euthanasia and Ethics
Euthanasia can be executed by doing or omitting something. For example, a doctor may give lethal injections to terminally ill patients, or disconnect the patients feeding tube. Physical conditions like incontinence, breathlessness, paralysis, nausea and vomiting can severely damage terminally ill peoples quality of life (BBC, 2010). Psychological factors like depression and fear of loss of a persons dignity may cause them to consider euthanasia. However, it is not euthanasia if a patient dies as a result of refusing extraordinary or burdensome medical treatment. Administering drugs to reduce pain even though the drugs leads to patients dying sooner is not considered to be euthanasia as the doctors intention is not to kill that patient but to relieve pain, an argument called the Doctrine of Double Effect (BBC, 2010).

Euthanasia elicits many agonizing ethical questions like whether it is right for another person to end a terminally ill persons life because that person is in severe pain under what circumstances will euthanasia be said to be right What moral different is there between letting the terminally ill person die and killing them Central to the arguments are the different peoples ideas to the human existences value and meaning, and whether any human being has the right to make decisions on life and death issues for themselves. Yet, regardless of whether euthanasia was morally right, some people believe it should never be permitted, as it would be abused and used to cover up for murder (Marker  Kathi, 2010).

People should consider relieving other peoples suffering whenever possible and help those suffering bear their pain when they cannot relieve it. Eliminating others should never be an option when dealing with suffering problems. Also, how would people define suffering Considering that what one person may consider as suffering may not be suffering to another, it is also impossible to usefully measure suffering and define circumstances under which suffering would be said to be unbearable because different people react differently to the same physical or mental conditions (BBC, 2010). That is why human beings life should be respected regardless of age, race, social status, sex, achievement potential, etc. Just the fact that one is human in itself has value. According to Emmanuel Kant, a persons inherent value does not depend on whether the person is having an enjoyably good life, or whether that person is making others lives better. Just by existing, that person has value. To end ones life merely because it looks like the most effective to end ones suffering is failing to respect ones inherent worth (Euthanasia, 2010).

Legal involuntary euthanasia may cause doctors to start killing people without their permission in order to save money or simply free up hospital beds. A good example is a terminally ill patient in a Holland clinic whose cancer had spread from her breast to her bones, lungs and liver. One of the doctors, having examined her, gave her pain-relieving medication (Eads, 1997). After about a day, she was pain-free and, although she was aware she did not have many days to live, she remained calm and able to see her husband and even her family. Later, the doctor received a call from a nurse informing him that after he had left, another doctor entered the woman patients ward, asking her husband who was accompanied by her sister to leave, ordered the patients morphine dose to be increased without a written confirmation. The patient died within a few minutes. When the doctor who had examined her demanded an explanation, his colleague replied that he needed the bed (Eads, 1997).

Allowing euthanasia is the same as saying that it is better to die than be disabled or sick that there some lives unworthy of living. This does not just put such people at risk, but also down-grades their value as living human beings. Able-bodied or healthy people take life with terminal illnesses and disabilities to be a disaster, with some societies regarding such terminally ill people as a burden or as inferior (BBC, 2010).  For example, an elderly person who cannot even understand a menu may be asked to sign to consent to have euthanasia carried out on him because some people see the person as a burden. This would be more like murder, because the person cannot be said to understand the issue in the first place (Euthanasia, 2010).

Conclusion
Even a former Dutch health minister who proposed the bill to legalize euthanasia in Holland admitted that they made a mistake by legalizing the practice (Craine, 2009). That is why palliative care is the better option despite some people advocating for euthanasias legalization, the evidence of abuse of the practice, that is even where allowed, is as overwhelming as much as it is shocking.