To Live and To Die, Euthanasia Dilemma
To kill a person is obviously wrong both morally and legally. What if a dying person wants or orders herself or himself killed? The dispute between the pros and the cons has not stopped to attain a point of agreement on the case. It is said that the nature of human being is keeping alive, or strive to keep surviving in any condition no matter whatever befalls her or him. What about human being who is in pain or suffering?
Having a body as well as its life upholds an inevitability that (s)he wholly grasps the continuance of her or his life. We call it right to live. But, on the other hand, does it not imply the other side, that (s)he simultaneously completely grasps her of his decision of not continuing the life? Is it not the same right to die as (s)he has a right to keep alive? That is inescapably the other opposite side of the same coin or is none other than a double-edged sword.
Is there a place for the right to die? Living in the world is not at all times dependent on the force of keeping surviving. We have a critical situation when to decide conversely, to choose other side of the coin, and to undergo the other way where we consider it better. This situation often takes place in terminal ill, a condition which enables the owner of the life to pick the other side of the coin — to die.
Can it be justified morally? To terminate the life of human being is a complicated problem and seems contrary to our moral standpoint. Furthermore, it does not only seem contrary to our moral standpoint, but also contradicts the nature of human being to keep alive. Clinging merely on to the understanding naively will fling us to another problem. Are we assuredly willing to let and amenable to seeing a person who is in pain incessantly?
Our conscience will consider the two sides so formidable that we are facing a confusing decision whether or not to support the person who is in pain to keep alive. Certainly, to kill is wrong morally, but to let a person being in pain does not mean that we do not do a wrong act, because, chiefly after doctors have no longer been able to cure, or at least assist, the person being in pain or terminal ill, the condition has us ruminate it rigorously why we do not want to help the person in any case feel better or let her or his decision determine whether (s)he wants to continue living or not.
Letting a person in critical medical condition is not good morally because we have our heart to be able to feel the same condition as (s)he feels. The decision of continuing or of not continuing her or his life is on her or his own. We should “be able to” respect what decision they are going to choose. Even if they choose to die, the decision is her or his right and her or his authentic freedom. Yet, in this case, we cannot spontaneously base the termination merely upon the two above, right and freedom. We must ground it in the critical condition of the patient — for instance, (s)he is in a vegetative state.
In addition to the fact that the decision must only be voiced by the patient herself or himself, as a matter of fact we can put our decision as well by considering the condition of the patient thoroughly and not haphazardly, because it must be arduous for the patient being in terminal ill to articulate the decision particularly when (s)he loses her or his awareness of the circumstance like in a vegetative state. It is the same case as a child being in terminal ill who has not been able to consider what to decide. Consequently, her or his parents or other persons who has her or his custody have to take the decision on behalf of hers or his.
Inasmuch as the basis of the inference is grounded in an understanding that killing is wrong morally and criminal legally, most countries do not legitimatise this action, what we name “euthanasia”, and neither does Indonesia. Whereas, actually we can unearth most people do it unknowingly, fortuitously, or inadvertently. Taking into consideration the fact that it is done unwittingly, unconsciously, or unintentionally, we call it the passive euthanasia, most of which are owing to the problem of medical cost with the result that the patient’s family does not continue hospitalising her or him but takes care of her or him in her or his home. Euthanasia, which etymologically means “an easy or good or gentle death”, is not a big deal in this era, but what about a person who works to facilitate it or in other words it is her or his profession? Is it not a sort of crime? What we have to do is ponder and reassess its entire context with no haste.[]