Q#1: In your view, what is the role of the physician or medical caregiver? Does your perspective of the role of the physician permit or prohibit Voluntary euthanasia? Why?
Answer:
In my view, the role of any physician and medical caregiver is to save the lives of patients and needy persons who are undergoing health issues. In this way, the physician or medical caregiver performs multiple duties to reach the end goal, i.e., to save life or ease the suffering of any needy person, irrespective of one’s nationality, ethnicity, religion, caste, or creed. Such duties may include routine tests or examinations, planned treatment, expert advice, medication or health management, care regarding meals, nutrition and hygiene, etc. Meanwhile, my perspective regarding the role of the physician prohibits voluntary euthanasia. In such a function, the fundamental part and duty of a physician become useless. A physician is a hope for life and better health till the last sigh of a patient. He should try his level best till the last minute to save lives or reduce the pain of any suffering patients by applying multiple treatment methods and techniques. The permission for voluntary euthanasia is the negation of the purposeful life of the physician.
Q#2: Does your perspective of the role of the physician permit or prohibit Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment? Why?
Answer:
My viewpoint regarding the role of the physician prohibits withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Such a withdrawal allows lusty and greedy family members to decide on euthanasia, which is not voluntary. Moral and professional ethics negate such practice even if it is 100 per cent voluntary by the patient. The withdrawal of treatment is the deliberate killing of a patient who has been bestowed with death without doing any wrong. An innocent patient should not be killed in this way. Meanwhile, such a practice advocates homicide in the long run. A person who commits suicide also suffers such a level of psychological suffering that he or she finds no other way than to death. Similarly, physical suffering cannot be a reason to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.
Q#3: Does your perspective of the role of the physician permit or prohibit Withholding life-sustaining treatment? Why?
Answer:
No, my point of view regarding the role of a physician prohibits the withholding of life-sustaining treatment. This practice is equivalent to the “cold-blooded killing” of a person who needs full-fledged treatment. It is like snatching the right to healthful living from the patient and leaving him or her in a phase of more trouble and suffering. A physician should play his or her role to facilitate the patient to reduce one’s suffering and pain. In contrast, withholding of treatment formulates an environment where the patient lingers towards death. Such action by a physician is like a lethal dose for the patient who needs something better, but he or she is provided with the worst treatment in the name of voluntary euthanasia. This specific practice of withholding life-sustainable treatment is condemnable.
Q#4: Is there an ethical difference?
Answer:
The ethical and moral difference regarding the “good or bad” division of any action needs deep consideration. As far as voluntary euthanasia is concerned, it is unethical. The modern division of voluntary euthanasia has led to active and passive euthanasia with the consent of the respective patient. It is morally and ethically prohibited to negatively impact both ends, i.e., physician or patient. On the patient’s side, it is unethical, just like the deliberate killing of the patient. On the physician’s side, it is morally and ethically hideous to undermine and underestimate the goals of the medical profession. It prohibits physicians from putting their utmost effort and weeks the stigma against suicide attempts by society’s disturbed and suffering persons.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
