Assisted dying is surrounded by both physician-assisted suicide as well as euthanasia, which is a profoundly known ongoing ethical issue. The pros and cons of assisted dying are a very long discussion and are surrounded by moral and ethical dilemmas on whether it should be legal. Assisted dying involves providing assistance to an individual suffering from a painful illness or an incurable disease to end their life. Physician-assisted suicide provides what is needed for self-administration, while active euthanasia means a doctor providing a lethal dose to end an individual’s life.
The practice of assisting someone to die is a very intense global debate questioning the beliefs about religion, life autonomy, and medicine’s role. Medical advancements for prolonging life and reducing suffering make the discussion of assisted dying very urgent.
Table of Contents
Pros and Cons of Assisted Dying Through the Lens of Autonomy and Compassion
The idea behind assisted dying emphasises individual autonomy and compassion. The right to make decisions as individuals or competent adults gives us the idea of how we should have control of our lives, including the manner and the timing of our death. Many believe that enduring unbearable suffering is something that strips them of dignity and violates the fundamental right to live with dignity. Assisted dying is seen as the final act of agency, allowing people to end their lives peacefully and in a dignified way, and avoid prolonged suffering.
Compassion in the view of assisted dying is a powerful argument. Living through unbearable, unrecoverable suffering can be mentally distressing as well as challenging. When all the medicines and palliative care fail, assisted dying is seen as the most humane option to alleviate pain and suffering. Denying an individual to alleviate their agony or suffering can be considered cruel. Assisted dying helps people who are facing a serious illness that erodes their identity as humans and offers them a merciful release. It allows them to avoid a future where they are in agony and suffering, and have a painful death.
Pros and Cons of Assisted Dying Through the Perspective of the Sanctity of Life
People opposing assisted dying often bring up the sanctity of life, asserting that all human life is valuable and deserves protection regardless of quality. The intentional ending of life doesn’t matter with or without consent, and is seen as a violation of trust and morally wrong. Many religions view life as a divine gift and that death should be a natural, not a deliberate one. If we do not see it in terms of religion, there is a secular belief that society must protect fragile, vulnerable individuals, and legalising assisted dying questions that very moral code.
Many fear legalising assisted dying for terminally ill conditions could lead to expanding eligibility to less severe illnesses, chronic conditions, disabilities, or psychological suffering. The societal and economic pressures might make individuals lose hope and choose assisted dying over adequate care. The option, which is seen as something very compassionate, might now be a default option for many, diminishing the value of life, especially for the elderly, sick, or disabled.
Pros and Cons of Assisted Dying Through the Works of Medical Ethics and Societal Implications.
The medical field is at the center of this debate. Medicines are proven to be something that preserves life and alleviates suffering. Assisted dying questions this very core objective of medicine or health care, and does not align with the Hippocratic Oath. Some people question medical professionals’ role; they believe it is to heal and provide comfort in pain, but not intentionally end life. People might start believing that assisted dying is the only way to alleviate pain and stop looking for other options, but it happens that an individual can get better even though he is ill now.
Some people also believe refusing assisted dying in extreme suffering is a failure of medical compassion. They believe that when all the treatments and medicines fail, the patient should be given this option to end their suffering. The debate also highlights the importance of robust palliative care. Many believe that societies should invest or put more effort into palliative care services so that no individual is pushed to the extent where they have to choose assisted dying because of inadequate care provided. Societal involvement extends to resource allocation, family dynamics, and the broader cultural message about valuing life and death.
Conclusion
The debate involving assisted dying is hard to solve, involving known ethical, moral, and practical issues. Strong debates exist for individual autonomy and compassion, helping to alleviate suffering and living with dignity. The pros and cons of assisted dying create compelling arguments based on the sanctity of life, which can also be abused, and where medicine’s fundamental role is questioned. As more countries consider or legalise assisted dying, it’s clear there is no clear answer. Any framework must be carefully crafted with strict safeguards, thorough evaluations, and accessible, high-quality palliative care. However, this discussion forces societies to discuss their strong values about life, suffering, and the meaning of a “good death.”
FAQs
What are the arguments against assisted dying?
Devalues some lives. Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, “it’s better to be dead than sick or disabled”. The subtext is that some lives are not worth living.
What is the good side of euthanasia?
Some arguments in favour of euthanasia include: Human beings should have the right to be able to decide when and how they die (self-determination). Euthanasia enables a person to die with dignity and in control of their situation.
Why is assisted dying a moral issue?
A central moral argument against legislating to permit assisted dying is that a regime that would allow intentional killing, or assistance in killing, however kind or compassionate the motive, breaches the fundamental principle of the sanctity of life (sometimes described as the ‘inviolability of life’ principle).
