Human dignity and autonomy in euthanasia: A sociological perspective on life and death

Patrick Menezes^*
*Correspondence: Patrick Menezes, Department of Anesthesiology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, Email:

Received: 25-Aug-2023, Manuscript No. IJMSA-23-118046; Editor assigned: 28-Aug-2023, Pre QC No. IJMSA-23-118046 (PQ); Reviewed: 12-Sep-2023, QC No. IJMSA-23-118046; Revised: 19-Sep-2023, Manuscript No. IJMSA-23-118046 (R); Published: 26-Sep-2023

Description

The method of ending a patient’s life in order to reduce their suffering is known as euthanasia. Society has a major influence on how people talk about euthanasia. It provides the background against which moral and ethical principles are portrayed. Euthanasia acceptance or rejection is impacted by historical background, religious convictions, and cultural norms. Euthanasia may be seen more favorably in societies that place a high value on individual autonomy because it is consistent with the right to personal choice and self-determination. Family dynamics are significantly impacted by euthanasia because it frequently calls for difficult decision-making. Making decisions about a loved one’s end of life is a common duty placed on families. These choices can be stressful and cause rifts in families because different family members may have different views on euthanasia.

For instance, one family member may advocate for euthanasia to alleviate a patient’s suffering, while another may firmly oppose it on moral or religious grounds. This contrast in viewpoints highlights the complex relationship between individual values and group dynamics within a family and can lead to conflict, emotional distress, and family divisions. The role of the healthcare system is central to the euthanasia. In many societies, medical professionals are seen as trusted authorities in matters of life and death. Euthanasia raises questions about the extent of a doctor’s role in facilitating a patient’s desire to end their life. Doctors find themselves at the intersection of ethical responsibilities, legal boundaries, and patient care.

The legal framework in place also affects the availability of euthanasia as a treatment option within the healthcare system. Medical professionals must operate within a system of checks and balances in nations where euthanasia is permitted in order to guarantee that the patient made an informed and voluntary decision. However, when requests for assisted suicide are made in areas where euthanasia is prohibited, medical professionals may be faced with ethical issues and the possibility of legal consequences. Euthanasia is closely related to the concept of end-of-life care, which encompasses palliative care and hospice services. These services are designed to provide comfort and alleviate suffering for individuals facing terminal illnesses. Sociologically, the availability and quality of end-of-life care impact the choices patients and their families make regarding euthanasia.

In societies with well-established end-of-life care programs, individuals may be less inclined to request euthanasia due to the assurance of pain management and emotional support. Conversely, in places with limited access to such services, the perception of a “good death” becomes more elusive, potentially driving individuals to consider euthanasia as a means to end their suffering on their terms. Euthanasia carries a social stigma, with individuals who express a desire for it often facing judgment and criticism. This stigma can manifest on both personal and institutional levels. People may fear the judgment of their friends, family, or community if they express their wish for euthanasia, which can lead to secrecy and isolation.

In societies with well-established end-of-life care programs, individuals may be less inclined to request euthanasia due to the assurance of pain management and emotional support. Conversely, in places with limited access to such services, the perception of a “good death” becomes more elusive, potentially driving individuals to consider euthanasia as a means to end their suffering on their terms. Euthanasia carries a social stigma, with individuals who express a desire for it often facing judgment and criticism. This stigma can manifest on both personal and institutional levels. People may fear the judgment of their friends, family, or community if they express their wish for euthanasia, which can lead to secrecy and isolation.

Furthermore, the broader society’s stigmatization of euthanasia can manifest through restrictive laws, negative media portrayal, and societal attitudes. This social stigma can create an environment in which individuals may feel compelled to forgo their own desires and suffer in silence rather than openly discussing their end-of-life wishes. A key of sociological dimension of euthanasia revolves around the concepts human dignity and autonomy. One of the most commonly defended fundamental human rights is the freedom to make decisions about one’s own life. Advocates of euthanasia believe that it allows people to express their autonomy by selecting the details of their own demise. The sociological case for euthanasia is based on the desire for a dignified death free from intolerable suffering.

Euthanasia is a complex issue that can disproportionately affect marginalized communities. The intersection of euthanasia with socioeconomic factors, race, and access to healthcare can result in disparities in end-of-life choices. For instance, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds may have limited access to healthcare and palliative services, leaving them with fewer options for pain management and support in their final days. Additionally, cultural and religious factors can influence the choices of different racial and ethnic communities regarding euthanasia. Recognizing these disparities is essential when examining euthanasia from a sociological perspective, as it underscores the social injustices that can be perpetuated by the unequal availability and accessibility of end-of-life care.