Euthanasia is a direct result of diminished autonomy and therefore must be scrutinized as a form of assassination. Many layers envelope controversies such as euthanasia, that have immense moral and ethical connotations. These at times may be overlooked as a result of the intense emotions involved in death and dying. Attempting to truly understand the implications involved in the process as a whole is a privilege granted by our existence as autonomous agents. Autonomy refers to the capacity to live life according to one’s own maxims that must not be manipulated by external influences. Due to the multitude of variables involved in end of life decision making it would be an impossible feat to remain as such an agent. The lack of this fundamental principal leaves an immense affliction in an issue of permanence.
Problematic significance can be found in the definition of euthanasia. Defined as an easy or painless death, this concept fails to appreciate the mental and religious anguish involved in suicidal murder. Severe pressure would be placed on these patients that have diminished autonomy due to their current state of pain, consciousness, or mental capacity. This is coupled with the burden of grim prognosis that entails the increased lack of bodily functioning. Current psychological state plays a major role in decision making that might not be as permanent. Depression is a treatable condition that could influence a person that is normally opposed to euthanasia, but give in to an overwhelming sense of sadness. Often an emotionally neglected person attempt but do not always succeed with suicide. The incapability to actual succeed underlies true intentions for comfort. However with the choice out of their hand the likelihood for success rises. Though the patient may be in a relaxed medicated state, psychological cognitive functioning may still be entailed. The possibility of regret may cause the last few minutes of life that should be rendered to make peace, a time of reverence. Moments of excruciating pain may cause a devout religious folk to contemplate suicide against their beliefs. Greater pressure and fear may be felt from the burden of the violation of their consciences. The consequences involved in the reasoning of such unnatural encumbrance can be unbearable in cases where parents or proxies imply the obligations of death. Their devotion to lessening the infliction of pain on their loved ones can cause grievances within oneself. The unnatural thought process that euthanasia provokes reduces our ability as humans to act freely and therefore autonomously.
Emotional and psychological effects are placed on doctors involved in euthanasia. In the Netherlands were this form of treatment is acceptable many medical practitioners who have performed this act are reluctant to do so again. Euthanasia is in fact in opposition of the standards held within the medical community which value the role of the Hippocratic Oath. The oath is in place as assurance to proper management of care as well as a commitment to uphold societal values. Two features within this proposal describe the explicit improprieties that involve issues of this nature. Beneficence is a principle that promotes moral obligation by acting in the benefit of others, promoting legitimized interest and protection of others by preventing or removing harm. Non-maleficence refers to the duty to do no harm. Euthanasia is contrary to these ideas that promote the wellbeing of the sick. The resulting roles for practitioners would be executioners deciphering life and death through their own paternalistic reasoning. It would be an improbability to assume that countertransference of personal opinions of these issues would be ineffectual, making these decisions in spite of the patients instead of for. This type of reasoning elevates their opinion, yet cause isolation at the same time. In states where euthanasia is permissible guidelines require psychological evaluations to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document