Euthanasia versus “Allowing to Die”

Name

Institution/Affiliation

The Oath of Hippocrates states that ‘To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause death’ (Marcoux et al., 2007).  This phrase offers purpose to the efforts fighting against those who advocate for euthanasia. Such efforts have gained momentum as far as to assist in coming up with laws that directly forbid doctor-assisted suicide, complemented by strict procedures for medical professionals to determine the competency of an ill patient. Euthanasia or assisted suicide can be described as the practice that ends the life of an individual so that to relieve them from the terminal illness (Kelly, 2006). There are those patients who prefer to make it easier for themselves as well as to friends and family and chose an alternative route to end their suffering. As a result, the critical argument is regarding whether euthanasia is a legal or ethical battle. More so, euthanasia leads to the rise of challenging problems, for instance, the need to explain the difference between killing someone and letting someone die. If one is to argue for or against the two, he/she would probably say that letting someone die is the suitable choice as opposed to killing someone. For that reason, this position paper argues for the need to allow someone die by presenting relevant objectives as well as logical arguments.

            In principle to allow patients to die preserves and upholds the ‘do not harm' principle that characterizes the medical practice. For that reason, according to Gillon (2015), it is hardly surprising that a recent research that involved over 1000 medical professionals revealed that only one in eight would be willing to part of assisted suicide. Also, just one in ten would consider the option of delivering lethal drugs to a terminally ill patient and offer assistance in suicide; as such, euthanasia is regarded as a highly unethical issue that contravenes moral principles. The reluctance by medical professionals is underlined by the fact that most doctors recognize that the judgments regarding such cases exceed their professional calling. In reality, medical ethics require that doctors confirm whether or not a patient is terminally ill; as a consequence, provide proper prognosis and offer advice on further medical avenues. According to Gillon (2015), it can be argued that most of the doctors are more than willing to go as far as providing medical advice and prognosis to terminally patients but not further.