Euthanasia
The meaning of a profession is devotion from its practitioner to aid in others and to serve some high good that upholds the moral nature of his activity. Medical professionals are devoted to serve the goal of health while also relieving the sufferings of the frail. They have a moral responsibility to keep their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath. Therefore, doctors must not kill.
Furthermore, the need for mercy killing is difficult to define when euthanizable people cannot be clearly defined. It is hard to decide what kind and degree of pain, suffering, or impairment, and degree of incurability or length of remaining life that could justify mercy killing.
Moreover, legalized mercy killing by doctors damages the doctor-patient relationship. It is hard for the patient to trust the doctor to seek out the patient’s best interest when they are licensed to kill. It is additionally a psychological burden of the doctors’ licensed to kill. It may be hard for them to care for patients passionately when they may always think of killing them as a “therapeutic option.” For any moral being, it is hard to see someone pass away, but it is even harder to know that you are solely responsible for guaranteeing the death of another human being. Even if it was legal and you did nothing wrong, but thoughts such as “did I really try my best?” will forever torment you. And even if it doesn’t at first, how many patients do you believe a doctor could handle killing, before it takes a toll on the doctor.
Even when one requests for assistance in death, many difficulties remain. We can never be sure that the request to be killed is the result of a free and rational decision. Kamisar points out some of these complications: Is this the kind of choice, (…) we want to offer a gravely ill person? Will we not sweep up, in the process, some who are not really tired of life, but think others are tired of them; some who do not really want to die, but who feel they should not
Furthermore, the need for mercy killing is difficult to define when euthanizable people cannot be clearly defined. It is hard to decide what kind and degree of pain, suffering, or impairment, and degree of incurability or length of remaining life that could justify mercy killing.
Moreover, legalized mercy killing by doctors damages the doctor-patient relationship. It is hard for the patient to trust the doctor to seek out the patient’s best interest when they are licensed to kill. It is additionally a psychological burden of the doctors’ licensed to kill. It may be hard for them to care for patients passionately when they may always think of killing them as a “therapeutic option.” For any moral being, it is hard to see someone pass away, but it is even harder to know that you are solely responsible for guaranteeing the death of another human being. Even if it was legal and you did nothing wrong, but thoughts such as “did I really try my best?” will forever torment you. And even if it doesn’t at first, how many patients do you believe a doctor could handle killing, before it takes a toll on the doctor.
Even when one requests for assistance in death, many difficulties remain. We can never be sure that the request to be killed is the result of a free and rational decision. Kamisar points out some of these complications: Is this the kind of choice, (…) we want to offer a gravely ill person? Will we not sweep up, in the process, some who are not really tired of life, but think others are tired of them; some who do not really want to die, but who feel they should not