According to Humphrey, cases of euthanasia have persisted in the world, and this is a major challenge facing many countries (Boss, 2009). Those who believe in the patients’ autonomy and sympathize with them, actually find it hard to accept that legalizing euthanasia poses a danger to the right and welfare of the sick. This means that it should be done in a courteous way. It is a controversial debate to argue that there are certain rights linked to euthanasia whose denial can lead to application of liberty-limiting principles. Therefore, sound judicial policies are necessary in tackling this issue. Instead of leaving patients under the agony of extreme pain and suffering, positive clinical reforms as well as social reforms are necessary.
Assisted suicide or terminal sedation is morally right since the patient consents to it before its execution, and it is a method of letting the terminally ill patients die rather than killing them directly (Boss, 2009). The same argument can be supported by the revelation that many physicians have the moral duty to let their patients die peacefully. In addition, the medical team can assist the patients to relieve pain and suffering. In cases where duties conflict, it is the patients who are left to decide on the action that the healthcare providers take (Boss, 2009).
Terminal sedation involves administering high sedative doses to relieve the patient from severe physical distress, and it makes him/her unconscious till death. In fact, termination sedation is allowed in cases whereby it is the only means to relieve the patient’s suffering. In such circumstances, it is neither immoral nor unethical, and the doctor is at liberty to administer high doses of sedatives to the terminally ill patient (Boss, 2009). Contrary to euthanasia, terminal sedation can be regarded as a way of letting terminally ill patients die. However, euthanasia can be regarded as direct killing because the doctors administer lethal injections and drugs to the patients (Boss, 2009).