Argument – Page 5

EUTHANASIA News: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant an aged couple’s plea to allow “passive euthanasia” for their 30-year-old son, who has been comatose at home for 11 years after falling from the fourth floor of a building.Passive euthanasia refers to the intentional act of letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing life support or treatment that is necessary to maintain life.In this case, the Bench told the parents' counsel that, "it would amount to active euthanasia, which is not legal." In India Context: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018, recognizing it as part of the right to a ‘living will’.The court emphasized that, “Dignity in the process of dying is as much a part of the right to life under Article 21. To deprive an individual of dignity towards the end of life is to deprive the individual of a meaningful existence.”This stands in contrast to active euthanasia, which involves an active intervention to end a person’s life using substances or external forces, such as administering a lethal injection. In Favor of Euthanasia: Autonomy and Personal Choice:Euthanasia respects individual autonomy by allowing people to make their own decisions about life and death. If someone with a terminal illness wishes to end their life on their own terms, euthanasia empowers them to do so.Relief from Suffering:Euthanasia can be a compassionate option for individuals experiencing unbearable pain and suffering. For terminally ill patients where pain management is ineffective, euthanasia offers a humane way to end their suffering.Quality of Life:When a person's quality of life has deteriorated to the point where they can no longer engage in meaningful activities, and their existence is reduced to enduring pain, euthanasia can provide them with a dignified and compassionate end.Economic Considerations:In some cases, prolonged medical treatment for terminal illnesses can place a heavy financial burden on families and healthcare systems. Euthanasia may help reduce this strain, allowing resources to be redirected to patients with a chance of recovery.Ethical Consistency:Advocates argue that if society accepts palliative care to ease the suffering of terminally ill patients, euthanasia is a logical extension of this principle—providing a more direct means to alleviate suffering. Against Euthanasia: Moral and Ethical Concerns:Opponents argue that euthanasia undermines the intrinsic value of human life. They believe that allowing individuals to intentionally end their lives devalues the sanctity of life and could lead to a slippery slope where other lives are devalued in different contexts.Potential for Abuse:There is concern that legalizing euthanasia might lead to abuses, where vulnerable individuals—such as the elderly or disabled—may feel pressured to choose euthanasia due to societal or familial expectations.Medical Ethics:Many healthcare professionals adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, which emphasizes "do no harm." Euthanasia could conflict with this principle, as intentionally ending a life is seen by some as fundamentally incompatible with the role of a healer.Psychological Impact on Families and Healthcare Workers:Euthanasia may have significant psychological effects on the families of those who choose it, as well as on healthcare workers who might struggle with the ethical implications of administering euthanasia.Palliative Care Advances:Opponents argue that advancements in palliative care are continually improving the ability to manage pain and suffering. Instead of euthanasia, efforts should focus on enhancing palliative care to alleviate suffering without ending lives.Both sides present compelling arguments, and the debate often centers around balancing the value of life with the need for compassionate care and personal autonomy.[wpdiscuz_comments]

Category: Argument

EUTHANASIA

RESERVATION

PRIVATIZATION

MARITAL RAPE

Company

Resources

Support

Follow us

Company

Resources

Support