KNUCKLING DOWN TO WHAT IS MORALLY GOOD: EUTHANASIA, NOT ONE

OF THE SELECTIONS

Submitted by:
Burgos, Amy Rose A.
Galvante, Trisha Nicole C.
Necor, Claire P.

Submitted to:
Ms. Jan Vaughnce Yrish Plaza
 The phenomena of the cumulative convenience of medical technology are a
remarkable mediation in saving human lives. However, they can also abide by prolonging the
dying procedure of a terminally ill patient at the cost of misery. This is where Euthanasia
comes in; it originated in Greek, which alludes to "good death" with care. It is the practice of
intentionally ending a life that releases an individual from a hopeless disease or unendurable
anguish (Jacques, 2012). Euthanasia is a composite context to start with. It has different
classifications, including active Euthanasia (painless killing through injection of some
poisonous drug), passive Euthanasia (supportive measures), involuntary (consent of
guardians), and voluntary (considered as suicide, consent of the patient). These approaches
are made to patients who are terminally ill; that is, patients who have an unbearable chance of
recuperating from the illness or, if ever preserved, do not function in a good state and will be
under vegetative condition (Cadungon, 2018). Howbeit, the medical personnel are
unsympathetically affected as they will defy the essence of the Hippocratic Oath. Regardless,
mercy-killing dismisses agony, it is not morally right for doctors to end life under the façade
of Euthanasia.
Throughout history, many individuals have defied the legalization of Euthanasia and
have been searching for a new effective way to resolve the issue. This is also seeming in the
various ways in which Euthanasia is deliberated in different countries around the world; some
countries upkeep it, some consider it, while others abstain from it completely. For example,
in 1984, the Netherlands was the first to agree on Euthanasia by empowering their supreme
court to allow voluntary Euthanasia. On the other hand, there are more than a few people that
Euthanasia or physician-assisted death should be one of the selections obtainable to a patient;
however, others toughly believe that due to several reasons, it must not be acknowledged by
humanity.
Firstly, ethical, and religious factors; (1) Human rights or sacredness of Life, (2)
irrationality of mercy-killing (3) the Philippines as a religious country. Another motive that
enables Euthanasia to take place is sovereignty or the ability to decide on your fate. The
questions to be answered here are about who owns the privilege. However, legal procedures
will aim to protect the individual who assists with death as the deceased have no right. A
major no would be the most acceptable response in such a case. This could again overlap a
way for Euthanasia to be legalized as it may be unprincipled and cruel to keep a person who
wants to die alive (Global Politician, web). Moreover, the Philippines is a religious country
that hinders the sanction of the Euthanasia Bill as it would go against the beliefs and the
sacredness of life of the Filipinos. Besides, most Filipinos still consider Christian doctrine as
the basis of their conviction (Tolentino, 2014). Thus, according to a study of "Survey of
Doctors' Opinions of the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide" by Lee, Rayner, et al.,
2009, there are 39 percent supported the idea of a reform to the legislation to allow assisted
suicide, 49 percent opposed the reform and 12 percent neither approved nor objected.
Religious belief was associated with the opposition. Doctors who acknowledge caring for the
dying are far less likely to tolerate a revision to the law.
Secondly, practical, and medical factors; (1) the possibility of finding cures and it
desecrates the ethics of medicine (Panzer, 2000), (2) terminal patients may feel obliged to end
their lives (3) tamper with any medical issues, and (4) Oath of Ethics or Hippocratic Oath of
Doctors. It resists the essence of the Hippocratic oath of doctors, which is an oath of ethics to
"swear and uphold the moral health-giving standards." Practically speaking, if we legalize
Euthanasia, we allow doctors to harm patients. If Euthanasia happens, you are letting doctors,
whose job is to save patients' lives, kill those patients instead of trying their best to save them
and searching for their treatment and cures. Euthanasia may allow medical people to be
discouraged from creating a treatment that might help them add another year of living.
Hence, the oath is an outright standard. We cannot remove nor demolish it because it is the
tool that lawfully acknowledges the doctor's medical duty.
Thirdly, human rights and self-determination. There is a clear argument that people
should have the right to end their lives whenever and wherever they choose, as the
Philippines is a democratic country. Many euthanasia supporters claim that everyone has the
right to assess their bodies and lives and that they should be able to decide at what time and
what means they will aspire to die. Since the right to Life grants a person the right not to be
killed if they do not wish to, Euthanasia advocates the defense of this right would prevent
Euthanasia from being misrepresented since killing a patient without their consensus will
violate their human rights. It can also be argued that, since death is a secluded matter, if there
is no danger to any other person, there is no right to decline someone's wish to end their life
(Math & Chturvedi, 2012).
(THEORIES)
Euthanasia refers to intentionally ending life due to pain and suffering that is
debatable because death is typically considered 'bad' in society. This case explains why we
view mercy killing as morally wrong. The Hippocratic Oath of a doctor can be related to this
case study's maximized ethical theory, Immanuel Kant's theory of deontology. Kant says that
humans possess the ability to reason, and that ability is present because of the presence of
moral agents. According to him, evaluating action must affiliate with the idea of not
compromising the duty or obligation for the action to be morally good. For an action to be
moral, a person should consider it a duty rather than doing it for a reason. The idea of
goodwill is the idea of acting out as duty. Such duties characterize our moral value and
worth; without duty and moral worth, humans are insignificant. It means if a person does not
act according to their duty, their action does not have true moral worth. Kant considered the
human's will to act out an action according to a principle.
Therefore, violating the Hippocratic Oath and not doing the doctor's duty of
prolonging their patient's life will constitute a morally wrong idea. Thus, mercy killing is
morally wrong. A maxim, for instance, "Anne had severe lung cancer and is in much pain due
to treatments. Anne's family is suffering because of her condition. Also, Anne is not
financially stable to support her medication. She will undergo mercy killing for her not to
prolong her suffering and for other patients to occupy her bed." Suppose we apply this
Maxim; in the case of medical practitioners, their duty of doing everything they can be
violated and is not morally good. Everyone has the right to be treated no matter their
condition. Therefore, as a deontologist, we consider Euthanasia as morally good and not one
of the selections for easing pain and suffering.
The concept of what "contemplates as damage" cannot be updated by the Hippocratic
oath of doctors. If a person does, they must ensure that the medical credibility floor is solid. If
the possibility of damage from the oath is changed, more significant offenses may occur. Any
doctors are going to malpractice. Otherwise, they would say that to avoid responsibility, it
was Euthanasia. The probability of a doctor's error, including unsatisfactory care,
misdiagnosis, needless or incorrect surgery, and even inaccuracy in the diagnosis of a
potential disease (Arguments against Euthanasia, n.d.), is among the numerous factors that
can alter a person's verdict. He may opt to die the easy way rather than encounter life-
threatening pain, even when he was a victim of a medical error. There may need no incurable
condition or medication. Euthanasia could be used as concealment for more criminal acts,
such as murder or any possible cause of death. However, it would help if a person still
guaranteed that the lowest degree of medical competence remains high in the position where
legalized Euthanasia (Lawteacher, 2019).
In the bargain, most Filipinos are not terrified of being hospitalized just because of the
possible procedures. However, they are petrified of how much would be worth treating their
illness. If the person does not have the adequate financial capacity to sustain the need for
treatment, the default is to shift the patients to free health care. However, the Philippines'
public health care is not as dependable as it should be. This has been a massive dilemma in
the Philippines, and the public health system should be fixed and never let the patients
foresee money as an incentive to pursue Euthanasia. Lack of money is not a ground for
Euthanasia. In relation, decision-making in pursuing Euthanasia and seeing a loved one
immensely suffering from endless pain can produce emotional factors. This should have
specific grounds when the patient asks to end his life, wherein legal actions and processes
should be performed accordingly. The patient himself attests and signs a waiver of ending his
life in his favor might be acceptable as he has the right to decide on his own. Nevertheless,
the legalization of Euthanasia is still not in favor but only permits individuals the right to
refuse the measure of sustaining life (Pope John Paul II, 2014). Accepting to let a person die
when he said he wanted to have Euthanasia and a person that naturally dies provides the same
number of emotional pieces of baggage.
Conversely, the Natural Death Act or Senate Bill No. 1887 in the Philippines, signed
by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, this bill was able to distinguish the rights of adults to
decide on their health care. Whether they want medication or to be able to give up their life in
a fatal or permanent unconscious condition, this bill is only accessible to adult persons. This
gives people who are in favor of legalizing Euthanasia a hope to strive for it.
In the same line, the shortening of the period of suffering is one of the factors why the
legalization of Euthanasia is a must. Several people think they have no other option but to
decide on Euthanasia to save the patient from suffering and to prevent medical expenditures.
In the case of fatally ill patients, they may have a lot of distress and agony and cannot relish
their lives. This will make the patient start undervaluing his or her life, and the patient will
settle that he or she does not desire to withstand the suffering for an extended period. There is
also the fact that, while the patient may request to be euthanized, this may have a very
negative bearing on the patient's family. In addition, medical science, and practitioners here
in the Philippines are not entirely advanced. Some Filipino physicians may lack the skills to
treat complex diseases meritoriously. As medicine reaches the point of life-or-death, surgery
often fails, making all treatments compensated by the patient's family resulted in ineffective.
Financial and emotional burdens (Krasemann, 2012) are part of the main reason why
Euthanasia should push through. Taking into consideration that the financial cost of keeping a
person alive and reliant on a life-sustaining machine is very significant and that 80 percent of
the Filipinos live in scarceness, how can the family manage to support the patient alive,
knowing that the patient will be in a vegetative state, no matter how he was maintained alive?
With estimates that only 2 out of 10 people with terminal illnesses survive due to proper
treatment, it is also irrational to anticipate that a patient with insufficient resources for
medication can recover from chronic disease; this results in Euthanasia (Cadungon, 2018).
In conclusion, everyone has the freedom to choose whether to continue seeing the
light of life or not. No one has the right to force someone to live if that person yearns not to
endure living because life can be controlled only by the one who possesses it (University
Degree Clinical Medicine, n.d). Nonetheless, some people are in a coma and never asked to
end their lives, but still prepare documents in advance to notify them about a person's choice
of vegetative state (Rachels, 1986). Such guidelines show the Physician's respect for the
patient's desires. Instead of killing hospitals and institutions, providing congenital patients
with adequate palliative treatment, including cognitive and physical assistance, is preferable.
Recognizing Euthanasia is morally wrong does not imply that it prevents people from
holding their right to decide to die. However, there are several grounds to consider when
legalizing Euthanasia as it is a complex discussion that may cover countless deliberation and
unpredictable worst-case settings. Allow people to decide on their own without putting
Euthanasia as one of the selections. The concept of independence gives an individual the
ability to exercise autonomy over his body and the freedom to make choices. Filipinos value
ethical values of human life, not only the promises written on the Hippocratic oath but as well
as the influential impact of medical and religious factors, whereas supporters of euthanasia
struggle for the liberty of individuality and reducing suffering. We should not add Euthanasia
to the job description of the doctors because part of their oath is to value the life of their
patients and never advocate for any person a way towards suicide.
 References

All Answers Ltd. (November 2018). Euthanasia is Ethical and Should Be

Legal. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-
essays/medical-law/euthanasia-is-ethical-and-should-be-legal-law- medical-
essay.php?vref=1

All Answers Ltd. (November 2018). Life or Death Euthanasia Arguments For
and Against. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-
essays/medical-law/life-or-death-euthanasia-arguments-for-and-against- law-medical-
essay.php?vref=1

Chaturvedi, S. B. (2012, December). Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die. Retrieved

from Indian J Med
Research:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/

De Guzman, R.A. (2013). Should Euthanasia Be Legalized in the

Philippines?. Studymode.
Retrieved
fromhttp://www.studymode.com/essays/Should-Euthanasia-Be-Legalized- In-The-
1354669.html
Hendin, H. (2004). The Case Against Physician-Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life
Care. Psychiatric Times. Retrieved
from: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/commentary-
case-against- physician-assisted-suicide-right-end-life-care

Lee, W., Price, A., Rayner, L. et al. Survey of doctors' opinions of the
legalisation of physician assisted suicide. BMC Med Ethics 10, 2 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-10-2

Marilla Lucero, I. D. (2018, December 29). Assessing the quality of medical death
certification: a case study of concordance between national statistics and results
from a medical record review in a regional hospital in the Philippines. Retrieved
from Population Healthcare Metric:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6311069/

Marker, R. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked

Questions. Patients Rights Council.
Retrieved
from:http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/frequently-asked- questions/
Mercado, M. (n.d.). Should Euthanasia be Legalized? Retrieved from Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/34931047/SHOULD_EUTHANASIA_BE_LEGALIZE D?
auto=download
Pereira, J. (2011, April 18). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of
safeguards and controls. Retrieved from Current Oncology:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

Tolentino, A. (2014, April 26). Mercy killing: yes, no, and why? Retrieved from Manila

Times:
https://www.manilatimes.net/2014/04/26/opinion/columnists/mercy-killing- yes-no-and-
why/9187