Why Leave People to Suffer Euthanazia
People with chronic and therefore incurable disease, or terminally ill, naturally have moments of despair, moments of very intense physical and mental suffering, but there are also times in which they live joy and happiness. These people struggle every day to live one second longer. Not always a human being with a given pathology wants to die "because it has no cure!"
Countering this trend fight at all costs, in some cases patients, who are really tired of living, which have had enough feel "a burden" arise, or feel alone, only accompanied by enormous suffering from physical, psychological or social. A person whose existence no longer make sense to me suffers in his heart, and often isolated in their inner world; feels that pays every second that passes a shame too heavy for the sole reason to exist (Ten & Welie, (2014, p. 123-136).
At this time and when death seems to be the only way the patient sees, will it should inform the patient of the effects, risks, feelings, reactions that euthanasia entails, or how it will be practiced. Only then the patient may decide conscientiously and be assured that, for me, this is the best option (Ten & Welie, 2014, p. 123-136). However, and in addition to information, the patient should be accompanied psychologically, in order to clarify that it does not suffer from any mental disorder, permanent or temporary, and is able to decide for himself and for his life. Every person exists independently and that whoever lives has his/her end to themselves.
There are many arguments against euthanasia, since the religious, ethical, social and even political. From the religious perspective it is seen as a violation of the right to human life and should be reserved for an exclusive Lord, that is, only God can take someone's life. From the perspective of ethical medical, bearing in mind the Hippocratic Oath, which states that considers life as a sacred gift, on which the doctor cannot be a judge of a life or death of somebody, euthanasia is considered murder. The physician thus, fulfilling the Hippocratic Oath, assists the patient, providing with any and all means necessary to its subsistence. In addition, it can be seen that there are many cases in which individuals are disillusioned by medicine and traditional looking after alternatives can heal themselves (Lemiengre et al, 2014, p.1-17).
Another of the arguments against focuses on the legal part, because the legal code does not denote the definite offense of euthanasia, reproving any unnatural act in the extinction of a lifetime. Being voluntary homicide, suicide or aid to murder even if the request of the victim or "compassion” punished criminally.
Some authors argue that a human being, albeit conceding too, if treated well, does not ask for euthanasia. Nowadays painkillers and other drugs that minimize the effects of illness and suffering and technical assistance, to a terminally ill person can be administered.
We cannot allow these people do not have a worthy follow up to his death and on their way to it we cannot close our eyes to someone with great sacrifice opens us and wishes to die. We cannot ignore a request for euthanasia and let it go unchallenged! Requests for euthanasia by patients are often requests for help, entreaties to that stop my suffering! According to these authors, most people who are in the final stages of his life, these people do not give up persist and give us the courage to do the same (Ten & Welie, (2014, p. 123-136).
Many people who are at this stage, they feel a burden of disease and the need for care and concern and weariness stamped on the faces of those who love and were accustomed to seeing smiling. However, after the previous relations, it is not correct to think that a request for euthanasia cannot be a claim and be reflected the true will of that human being, oblivious to economic, social, cultural, religious, physical and psychological factors.
It is in a context of these challenges that both health professionals and all persons involved in these situations require ethical criteria to guide towards authentic humanization of the terminal phase of life.
The moral obligation to ensure the special protection human life is witnessed in primary precepts of humanity, with various expressions across cultures, and encoded in the biblical commandment of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not kill" (Deut. 5:17). Compliance with this requirement is certainly incompatible with any form of direct assault on human life, where it does not threaten the existence of other people.
Consequently, it is ethically unacceptable any form of euthanasia, any act or omission which, by its nature and the intention causes death. Even the goal of eliminating suffering and rid the person of a painful state can legitimize euthanasia, the more that medicine and society have other means to help the terminally ill patients (Ten & Welie, (2014, p. 123-136). Equivalent to euthanasia, the ethical point of view, is any form of assisted suicide, also called assisted suicide.