Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues in the modern medicine. In fact, euthanasia raises a number of ethical and legal issues. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to define whether euthanasia should be applied in the modern health care system or it contradicts to the fundamental ethic principles of the modern health care system. On the one hand, euthanasia is considered to be essential to prevent sufferings of patients before their inevitable death, while, on the other hand, euthanasia contradicts moral principles of health care professionals since euthanasia leads to the death of the patient. Until today, there is no solution to the ethical dilemma whether euthanasia is acceptable or not, but it is obvious that this ethical dilemma needs legal solution because the lack of legal regulations of the problem of euthanasia shifts it from the ethical domain toward legal one.
On analyzing the problem of choice between the application of euthanasia or its total ban, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that there is no agreement on this issue. Health care professionals have absolutely different, antagonistic views on euthanasia. Some professionals support euthanasia while other reject. In such a context, it is important to dwell upon the arguments of both parties.

The supporters of euthanasia and its legalization (Emanuel, 1999) argue that euthanasia should be implemented in the modern health care system. In fact, euthanasia is traditionally defined as the termination of life by means of termination of life support (Batlle, 2003), but supporters of the legalization of euthanasia argue that euthanasia does not necessarily mean the intent termination of life of the patient. In fact, the death of patients, which can undergo the procedure of euthanasia, is inevitable and euthanasia hastens the death of patients but it is not a primary cause of the death (Batlle, 2003). Euthanasia is supposed to be applied in cases when patients are terminally ill and they will never recover.
In this respect, it should be said that many terminally ill patients suffer from their health problems. It is important to distinguish physical and psychological sufferings since the combination of both is likely to lead the patient to taking the decision to use euthanasia to hasten his or her death. At the same time, physical sufferings of patients can be unbearable and patients may be willing to hasten their death. On the other hand, the modern medicine can maintain life for quite a long period of time even in terminally ill patients that means prolonged sufferings of patients. In addition, it is important to take into consideration the will of patients who are willing to end their life but physically they cannot hasten their death and euthanasia becomes a tool with the help which they can fulfill their will (Emanuel, 1999). In such a way, supporters of euthanasia argue that euthanasia is not abusive and it brings relief to terminally ill patients.
However, the opponents of euthanasia argue that it should be totally banned. First of all, euthanasia implies that health care professionals are actually involved in the death of the patient. Instead of helping patients and saving their life they admit and hasten the death of patients. But it is possible to argue that supporters of euthanasia argue that health care professionals help patients since euthanasia puts the end to patients’ suffering and brings the desirable relief. Nevertheless, such justification of euthanasia is no acceptable to its opponents who believe that the primary concern of health care professionals is life and health of patients, while euthanasia, which leads to the death of patients, contradicts to this principle.
Furthermore, many opponents of euthanasia refer to religious views on the death and end of life issues. In fact, from a Christian point of view, for instance, euthanasia can be viewed as a form of suicide which is forbidden in Christianity as well as in many other religions (Brock, 1999). Therefore, euthanasia is viewed as an act which contradicts to basic religious norms and values. In such a way, euthanasia is absolutely unacceptable for many religious groups. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that basically religious views heavily rely on the concept of God which is believed to rule the world. In such interpretation, people are deprived of the free will to choose whether they should live or die. Instead, they are supposed to rely on the will of God.
At the same time, along with purely religious concerns, there are objective reasons for the ban of euthanasia because it is apparently offensive in regard to the basic human right, the right to life. In actuality, this means that euthanasia violates the right to life because the patient with the help of health professionals hasten their death that means the direct violation of the right to life, although, it is possible to argue that it is a conscious choice of patients. However, opponents of euthanasia (Thomson, 1999) argue that patients can take decisions being in an unstable psychological state. Consequently, their decisions can be motivated by their psychological problems but not objective factors and it cannot be logical, conscious choice of patients. In this respect, opponents of euthanasia argue that suicide is unnatural for humans, while euthanasia can be viewed as a form of suicide. Therefore, they argue that euthanasia should be totally banned.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that euthanasia still remains to be a subject of heat debates. At the present, it is extremely difficult to define whether euthanasia should be implemented and legalized in the modern health care system or not, but it is obvious that this problem needs to be regulated because it provokes not only debates but precedents when the actions of health care professionals, which may be interpreted as euthanasia, may be defined as a crime. At any rate, the lack of legal regulations and the ethical concerns associated with euthanasia create uncertainty which is not acceptable in the health care environment, where all issued should be clearly regulated.

References:
Batlle, J. C. “Legal Status of Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Journal of American Medicine. 278.19, September 29, 2003.
Bernat, J. L., Gert, G. and R. P. Mogielnicki. “Patient Refusal of Hydration and Nutrition: An Alternative to Physician-Assisted Suicide or Voluntary Active Euthanasia.” In Biomedical Ethics. Thomas A. Mappes and David DeGrazia, eds. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2001, p.436-442.
Brock, D. W. “A Critique of Three Objections to Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Ethics. 109 (1999): 519-547.
Emanuel, E. J. “What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physician-Assisted Suicide?” Ethics. 109.3 (1999): 629-642.
Thomson, J.J. “Physician-Assisted Suicide: Two Moral Arguments.” Ethics 109.3 (1999): 497-518.

Custom essay writing service Essay-911.com. Buy essays online!