Custom essays on Euthanasia: a serious hazard or great innovation?

The apologists of euthanasia draw our attention to unbearable sufferings experienced by the diseased – if they have been racked with an excruciating pain for a long time, they have full right to quit their desperate situation by ending their life. There have been described many cases when a person asked to turn off reviving apparatus or pump oxygenator being unable to do that him/herself. The refusal of physicians to respond to their request caused a lot of sufferings of the terminally diseased or old people, the agreement to do that meant bringing a criminal case against the medics who could not stand seeing how their patients are tormented by pain and desperation as it happened to Kay Gilderdale who “pleaded guilty to assisting suicide (“Broaden the debate” 303). Some sources inform us that “people increasingly want to have assisted dying and that the law is out of step with the public opinions” (Qiu 310). Legitimizing euthanasia would save many people from the tortures of diseases and injuries, and doctors from being sent to prison (Sanchez-Sweatman 52). This is one of the arguments, one of the strongest ones, for legalizing euthanasia.
The second argument concerns the people who are alive only biologically – they breathe, their heart is beating, blood circulating, they digest food – but their central nervous system has stopped functioning, their brain has died back, and they will never return to consciousness. Their biological functions may be maintained for years while the main constituent of human life, the main organ of their body – the CNS – is completely dead. In such a case, it is of course impossible to know the will of the patient, but his/her will has supposedly died together with the brain and other nerves, at least there is not visible or possible manifestation of its existence, and the fact of the CNS’s death has doomed them to never return to real life.
The last serious argument is the right to choice, i.e. an individual should have a full right to choose between life and death, and the latter should be granted to them too if they express such a wish. Such kind of statement is, however, dubious taking into account the fact that “serious requests for ‘assisted dying’ are rare and centred on a loss of function and change of life pattern, rather than on unbelievable physical pain” (Finlay 1841). So the problem lies much deeper.
In traditional religious discourse with “Thou shalt not kill” commandment (The Bible: Authorized King James Version, Exod. 20.13; Deut. 5.17; James 2.11), the principle of ahimsa euthanasia is not accepted. The position of Catholic Church, for instance, is based on the view that euthanasia “deprives a man of the capacity to act meritoriously at a time when the competency is most necessary and its product invested with finality” (“Euthanasia”). This negative approach is rooted in an old tradition and is supported by compelling arguments.
The pro-euthanasia tradition is based, consciously or subconsciously, on the ancient tradition as well. “Nothing may retard or hinder us from being ready to do at once that which at some time we are bound to do,” wrote Seneca some 2000 years ago, speaking about precipitating one’s death (193). Such opinion comes from the Stoic and other Western philosophical traditions.
Without any claim for final solution of the issue, it is important to lend an ear not only to the patients who can no more stand and endure their desperate situation and wish to end their lives, but also to the medical staff who do not wish to perform or participate killing, be it even desirable for the patient.

Works Cited
The Bible: Authorized King James Version. Ed. Robert Carroll, Stephen Prickett. New York: Oxford UP, 1998.
“Broaden the debate about assisted dying.” The Lancet Oncology 11.4 (2010): 303.
Burki, Talha. “European laws on assisted suicide move in opposite directions.” The Lancet Oncology 10.5 (2009): 447.
“Euthanasia.” Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent. Web. 11 May 2010.
Finlay, Ilora. “Dying and choosing.” The Lancet 373.9678 (2009): 1840-1841.
Qiu, Jane. “Assisted suicide: a matter of life and death.” The Lancet Neurology 8.4 (2009): 310-311.
Sanchez-Sweatman, L. “Euthanasia.” The Canadian Nurse 90.1 (1994): 51-52.
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Moral Epistles. Trans. R. M. Gummere. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1917.