Eva Guo (10) | STAFF REPORTER
Euthanasia, intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, is a subject of a multifaceted ethical and legal debate. Some argue that euthanasia is a merciful response to suffering that takes into consideration the wants and needs of the patient. Others say that it undermines the sacred nature of life and sets the groundwork for dangerous situations. Should euthanasia be accepted as a legitimate medical practice? Where should the line be drawn?
Proponents of euthanasia argue that individuals have the right to die the way they choose, especially when faced with terminal illnesses that cause extreme pain and suffering. They believe in the autonomy of the patient and their personal right to have control over their own lives, including the right to die as they wish.
Considering medical advancements that allow people to live longer, in return, suffering patients should also be allowed to choose a peaceful and painless death when their quality of life has deteriorated to a point of no return.
Additionally, euthanasia can ease the emotional and financial burden on families and healthcare providers. Terminal illnesses often require long-term medical care that places an emotional and economic burden on patients and their loved ones, as well as takes up healthcare resources for other patients. Legalizing euthanasia allows resources to be allocated more efficiently while reducing unnecessary suffering for all parties involved.
On the other side of the argument, opponents of euthanasia argue that it violates the sanctity of life. Euthanasia violates fundamental moral and religious principles in many cultures. Life is sacred, and intentionally ending one’s life raises many concerns. Allowing euthanasia could lead to situations where the criteria for permitting a person’s death become increasingly broad.
Another concern raised is the potential abuse of this system. Vulnerable individuals, including the elderly and disabled, may be pressured into choosing euthanasia due to financial difficulties or guilt that they’ve become a burden to their families. There is also the risk that legal euthanasia could discourage individuals to seek proper care, as some might see euthanasia as a more cost-effective option.
Moreover, euthanasia poses ethical dilemmas for healthcare professionals. Legalizing euthanasia creates conflicts for healthcare providers from religious or ethnic backgrounds that oppose euthanasia.
Given the strong perspectives from both sides of the dilemma, society must carefully navigate the ethics of euthanasia. A potential compromise is establishing strict legal frameworks that provide criteria of the conditions where euthanasia may be provided as an option. Instead of fully embracing or outright rejecting euthanasia, society should also invest in improving accessible care and mental health support so fewer individuals see euthanasia as their only option.
Euthanasia remains one of the most complex ethical debates surrounding autonomy, morality, and medical responsibility. While it offers a compassionate and merciful solution for some, it also presents risks that cannot be ignored. Society must balance the right to die with the obligation to protect the vulnerable.
