Navigating and managing the different boundaries of nepotism

 

SHEENA MAE P. PALASPAS, MBA

Divine Word College of Laoag

Laoag City

ABSTRACT 

Philosophers have been denying nepotism from ancient times but because it existed between the rulers of those times, it forms part of an accepted and expected practice in the system, making such practice impossible to be eradicated now in modern-day society. Currently, it is considered a natural thing and it managed its way across the culture of different sectors of society, including the corporate world.

Before Nepotism was never a problem, it is considered to be one of the lowest and least imaginative forms of corruption. But in today’s generation, it’s the people who are taking advantage of it that worsen the practice, making it an unethical one. Therefore, undeniably it is an issue that should not be set aside nor underestimated.

Nepotism has its positive and negative effects. Not everyone is in favor of the existence of nepotism, however, others see it in a different positive manner. Thus, this article will tackle different boundaries, insights, and perspectives on nepotism and the different means to manage its existence.

Keywords: corruption, nepotism, managing nepotism 

INTRODUCTION

In most In developing countries, corruption is widely seen as one of the biggest barriers to economic growth, investment, and poverty reduction (Ahmadi, 2009).  Undeniably, corruption is present in every country, it happens even to the very smallest unit of each region up to the major government institutions of a country.

According to Transparency International, an anti-graft organization that monitors the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) in public sectors, the Philippines ranks 113^th out of 180 studied on their Perceived Political Integrity Survey. 

Corruption has different faces and means which includes the following:  bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement.  One of the controversial and debatable forms of corruption is nepotism. Corruption works side by side with nepotism in every country, thus, in some way it causes a great loss in the economy and professional growth of the affected country (Plummer, 2012).

This the claim is supported by one of the famous old sayings, “it’s not a matter of who you are, but it’s a matter of who you know.”

As cited by Siababa (2017), nepotism is no longer a new phenomenon, it demonstrates an unfair practice by which a powerful person or official favors a a family member or relative over a more competent non-relative

With that, generally, nepotism is always regarded as unethical for it acts as a form of corruption especially so that because people always associate it with the the connotation that nepotism may include basic government ethics issues such as conflict of interest, misuse of office, preferential treatment, and patronage (Wechsler, 2009)

According to Kulkani (2020), in an organization, nepotism is naturally seen as an illegal and unethical for it can influence the decision like hiring, promotion of a relative over the non-relative candidate. The preferment of friends and relatives some applicants or candidates for promotion in bestowing office position naturally demoralize every employee in an organization. In some companies hiring relatives is forbidden through company policy, however, in most family-own businesses, it can be viewed as a custom rather than an unethical act. 

Nepotism 

Wikipedia describes Nepotism as a means of showing favoritism toward relatives and friends, based upon that the relationship they share, rather than on an objective evaluation of ability, meritocracy, or suitability.

Nepotism is a word that solely and wholly focuses on providing all benefits and privileges to family members and other relatives by providing them a position in work based on the relations not the efforts and qualifications of the individual. It does not consider competencies and efforts but solely deals with the familial relatedness of people to continue the dynasty which is already been established and settled.

Although a few types of research say that it is more dominant in small sector enterprises. According to Ravikiran (2020), nepotism can be formed from different sectors namely: Political Nepotism, Administrative nepotism, Administrative nepotism, Nepotism in Economic sectors, and Entertainment Industries.

 

1.    Political nepotism happens when a politician promotes or places his immediate and extended relatives or any close acquaintance in a certain political positions even if they do not have political knowledge.

2.    Administrative nepotism happens when a government employee or bureaucrat appoints his acquaintance or relative to a certain government position even if other people possess better qualifications necessary for the job. This also applies, to contractors who are related to a certain public authority or representative to be able to get a government project or contracts.

3.    In Economic sectors nepotism is also present when a majority owner of a joint-stock company promotes his son or daughter for ownership to maintain the highest decision-making positions.

4.    Nepotism can also be formed from entertainment industries. In an open professional community like film industries, producers, directors, production companies prefer industry kids over talented and hard-working outsiders who audition for a certain role.

Tracing the Roots of Nepotism

Nepotism is the ethnic ritual that is present and followed in every part of the world from the very beginning of human life on earth. By taking on a closer look, it turned out to be deeply rooted in human nature for it has its biological origins, cultural history, and measurable effects on modern society.

Tracing its biological origins, upon studying animal behavior, biologists and other scientists use the word nepotism to describe the behavior of animals that favors their family members over unrelated individuals.

Animal nepotism is a result of natural selection, this means that animal will behave in favor of different animals who are likely to have the same genetic traits which are being passed to another generation. Thus, this suggests that nepotism has an overall positive effect on survival rates for some species in certain situations.

On the other hand, some species are unable to reproduce, thus, the process of kin selection is done. It is a type of natural selection that considers the role that its relatives play when evaluating the genetic fitness of a given species (Dugatin, 2017) 

In the field of religion, way back in the 14^th century, the papacy is plagued by a history of nepotism. The word "nepotism" has originated from the Catholic Church.  Since the popes and bishops had taken vows of chastity and had no offspring.

The Catholic popes and bishops started assigning their nephews to important cardinal positions within the church. (Sherman, 1980). The term “nepotism” is based on the Latin word “Nepos” which means “grandson or nephew” (Arasli & Tumer, 2008).

Concerning the socio-economic context, the basic unit of society is called the family. Multiple families in a community create a tribe. These tribes can gather together to form larger communities or clans that can expand through city-states and nations. 

In a general sense, since we are just like any other species, we are considered as animals too, thus, we are also subject to kin selection. No matter how diverse or how large the communities can become, there will always be an instinctive desire to support every family member over unrelated people. As they say, “blood is always thicker than the water”, thus, maintaining loyalty to the family is essential in maintaining the cultured pattern of human civilization. 

An example could be the formation of different imperial powers and dynasties during the Chines Eras. Confucianism served a vital role in forming a strong foundation of Chinese Civilization. It suggested that a little nepotism is a good thing. It emphasizes family loyalty to balance the concern for the general well-being of the state (Marsh, 1960).

On the other hand, civilization for both the Roman Republic and Empire concerning nepotism became an essential vehicle to transmit power, wealth, lucrative business, and powerful political positions to their sons and relatives. One of the historical events of the Roman Empire was the assassination of Julius Caesar, instead of appointing a close deserving and knowledgeable political ally, his grandnephew, Octavian, took his position and became the first Roman emperor using the name Caesar Augustus. Unfortunately, the empire gradually failed and faded because corruption has taken over by the selected incompetent relative who governed such a large and complex empire (Matyszak, 2014).

European countries, which are dominated by ruling families or monarchy, laughed at the idea of nepotism being a bad thing. Nepotism was a practice that was already an innate part of their culture and that their entire system of government was purely based on passing their titles, powers, and wealth to their children. Primogeniture serves as a lawful act of passing of inheritance to the eldest son of the family.

In the Philippines, during the pre-Spanish colonization, the “Padrino” system was widely put in use. It encompasses the Filipino bilateral kinship system within which patron-client relations. To gain a radiating bilateral network of kinsmen, Filipinos became selective on their alliances on whom they will negotiate their Intra and interfamilial politics for more power gaining. It involves a symbiotic relationship that can be formalized through religious rituals such as baptism and wedding ceremonies. Furthermore, the archipelago was ruled by a constellation of competing for tribal chieftains, who were also known as headman or Datu who acts as heads of the barangay.  As expected, the socio-economic unit is composed of members related by consanguinity and affinity (Tendero, 2000).

Nepotism in many Asian and Middle Eastern countries is a way of life, it is expected and accepted as part of their culture and tradition. It continued to play in the modern eras of society.

However, at present, the Philippines is bounded by prohibitions enacted by law against the practice of nepotism. One of which is the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission Chapter 8, Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292:

“Nepotism – all appointments in the national, provincial, city, and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.”

The presence of this policy makes nepotism in the Philippines an illegal act, oftentimes, one will see nepotism as a breach of the public trust and sense of professionalism among employees. It generally, affects the morale of the organization and the commitment of employees working with it.

On contrary, even if nepotism is be legalized in all countries, some people will always have a relatively negative perception once nepotism takes into place. Undeniably, nepotism will always carry a stain or stigma related to corruption, unearned privilege, and rewarded incompetence of people involved. However, given the fact that it is not democratic and results in uneven practices, it is questionably still broadly accepted and exercised. 

Thus, we cannot just assume that something is ethical or unethical on a basis of its legality because when evaluating nepotism in a culturally relativistic manner, it involves consideration of certain behaviors or norms that may not conform to our own.  We cannot just conclude something is unethical because it is against our beliefs.

To further understand, it is important to dissect the different points or circumstances to be able to widely see the diversity of view of nepotism which can serve as a basis for quantifying something to be morally good or bad.

NEPOTISM AS BAD THING

In most situations, nepotism has always negative implications that affect leadership and the organization itself (Brookins, 2017). 

1.      Risk of Legal Action

·         The practice of nepotism could result in a lawsuit that is related to the unfair hiring practices and if mangers or officials demonstrates an unfair act favoring someone who happens to be his relative when it comes to salary, benefits

 

2Lower Employee Morale

·         When nepotism takes place, individuals who are family members or relatives are allowed to be promoted or hired based on relationship and not on merit. The more deserving employees will be disregarded, as a result, employee morale will be downgraded, and that they become less motivated in accomplishing their assigned task which will affect their job satisfaction and organizational commitment which can affect the whole organization as a whole.

 

3.      Risk of Family Feud

·         Once nepotism is practiced, there will always be a possibility that family feud and misunderstandings can leak in the organization. This often leads to confusion among employees of whom to follow especially when the fighting family members handle high positions. As a result, there will be a disruption of the overall operation and productivity of the business.

 

4.      Organizational Incompetency

·         The organization's competency can be harmed by hiring an ineligible and not qualified employee. By merely choosing employees based on kinship, organization, especially in the government sector will become a big hinder for growth for improvement because officials will just appoint someone who lacks knowledge and innovation during the practice of nepotism.

 

5.      Absolute Authoritative Leadership

·         When leaders are surrounded mostly with familiar people the more authoritative and manipulative the leader would become. This can affect employees who are not related to him which often results in resentment. Under this form of leadership, favoritism will be widely observed and that would clearly show a breach of professionalism

NEPOTISM AS GOOD THING

From the above-mentioned disadvantages, undeniably, many people would always regard nepotism as an unfair practice especially so that it promotes partiality that can oftentimes result in undesirable outcomes and organizational inefficiencies.  As unethical as it may seem, there are certain but limited circumstances that make it acceptable and somewhat beneficial to the organization

From the study of J. Ruch, he noted that several animal species once surrounded by their kin members will usually work with cooperation to form better group dynamics that will lead to a better chance of survival 

In support of the claim of the study, below are some benefits or application on which nepotism is accepted under a certain situation. 

1.      Building and Maintaining Legacy

·         Hiring family members and other relatives to continue the preservation of the established and built legacy serves as an incentive for hard work made by the previous generation. 

2.      Establishment of Start-up Businesses

·         Since the family members are already familiar with the creation and operation of a startup businesses, therefore, it will be efficient and effective. 

3.      Hiring and Retention Cost

·         The practice of nepotism for a certain business, since a family member will just be selected to take a position, the cost of screening and recruitment process will be avoided.  And if properly managed, family members or relatives will likely have a lower turnover rate against non-relative employees. 

4.      Knowledge of Management and Continuity

·         Family business would greatly benefit from nepotism in terms of knowledge transfer or handing over to the next generation a family business secret or technique. There will be a sense of security that the next generation will continue such practice of management.

 

5.      Family Unity

·         Another merit of nepotism is that family members working together in a certain business would like to pursue a single goal which is the success of the business.  Thus, understanding and lesser fights are expected which creates coordination among them that can result in productivity.

MANAGING NEPOTISM

Adam's Equity Theory serves as a basis for developing the perception of fair or unfair behavior within the workplace. It refers to the extent of equity among individuals that is accomplished based on the ratio of input imparted to output earned. (Chen, 2008). Thus, when dealing with nepotism, it is important to access first and foremost if nepotism wherein an unfair level of favoritism exists. One should be very careful when dealing with clear signs of nepotism. The following are advisable strategies to address the problems:

For Employees

1. Make sure to document specific incidents

·         Try to substantiate your claims by gaining other witnesses and taking down notes as well as documents specifying the incidents of nepotism.

2. Gather others’ experiences and opinions

·         It is advisable to ask probing to gain further knowledge. 

3. Talk it through with a confidential individual at the organization

·         Try to organize your meeting to raise as little suspicion as possible. Set up an appointment with an HR professional in the organization or identify a third-party individual who is higher up than you to help.

·         Always remember to be professional and have more than one more meeting with more than one person to help substantiate your claim.

4. Behave professionally

·         Regardless of the strategy, you choose to use, a key characteristic for dealing with nepotism is to behave with professionalism. Just continue to work as you would normally and approach issues of nepotism with decorum. Behaving unprofessionally and without a certain level of dignity is likely to backfire and stop you from reaching your overall goal.

For Employers

It may be difficult for employers to envisage how they can negate nepotism in the workplace, but it is possible through the following 

1. anti-nepotism policies

·         The creation of thoughtful and well-defined anti-nepotism policies that restrict related individuals from working in the same department or company can be done. For example, policies may prohibit one relative from supervising another or from married couples from working together. 

2. Create viable communication channels

·         Provide employees with proper communication to discuss where nepotistic biases may lie in the company. This provides employees with greater confidence in expressing their unhappiness politely and diligently.

3. Develop a viable internal promotional structure for relatives and friends

·         When employing friends and relatives it is important to be objective about the grade of job they should be employed in. This will show to others that they haven’t received the job based on nepotism, but their pre-defined level of skill and experience. Thus, this provides friends and family members with the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and as to why they may deserve a promotion in the future.

CONCLUSION

Sometimes, it is really difficult to understand and accept the different actions of the members of other societies, especially so that they oppose our perspective or point of view. Oftentimes, we are quick in judging certain aspects of the culture of other people as "immoral" or "uncivilized" without being aware of the fact that others may judge us also in a similar vein (Funtecha, 2017).

Nepotism is a controversial topic in the world of business ethics, thus, there is a need to weigh all the necessary and possible perceptions towards it to define what is considered to be ethical or unethical. Tracing back the roots of nepotism, the practice of nepotism is already innate, especially in the system of government and other business organizations.  

In the government sector, nepotism is prohibited in the government to avoid ethical issues such as conflict of interest, misuse of office, preferential treatment, and patronage. Although there are negative connotations that are always attached to it, there are always exceptions to the rule.  In the different historical events and modern-day society, nepotism is not inherently unethical to employ family members. We have seen businesses that succeed even through nepotism. Truly, there will always be circumstances that will mitigate the effects of nepotism which will make it still acceptable and expected. 

Furthermore, it is essential to note that, the ethical nature of nepotism will always be dependent on the circumstances and how we handle such kind of practice.  It is important to note that the nature of the business, standards of employment, and consistency in policies serve as a guiding principle in decoding the ethical nature of nepotism.

By being able to navigate the different perspectives of nepotism, we became more open-minded. Thus, seeing a more complex angle or point of view helps us our understanding of what nepotism is. Nepotism can be seen as a double edge sword, it can cause severe damage if not handled properly. Nepotism is both a curse and a curse for our society.  It addresses the needs of society and somehow creates a problem that needs to face. 

In this sense, we should always be careful of our choices, on what to consider, and what to believe as ethical or not, for any wrong decision or move will erode an organization’s ability to succeed.  

REFERENCES:

Ahmadi, M. (2009). Assessment of the Causes of Employees' Adherence to Municipal Corruption in Esfahan (Isfahan Municipality). Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Tehran University.

Arash, H., Tumer, M. (2008). Nepotism, Favoritism, and Cronyism: A Study of Their Effects on Job Stress and Job Satisfaction in the Banking Industry of North Cyprus. Social Behavior and Personality. Vol. 36(9), pp. 1237-1250. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Brookins, Miranda. (2017). Consequences of Nepotism. Retrieved from: https://bizfluent.com.

Chen, L. (2008). Job Satisfaction among Information System (IS) Personnel. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 105-118.

Dugatin, L. (2007). Inclusive Fitness Theory from Darwin to Hamilton. Retrieved from: http://www.genetics.org

Kulkarni, A. (2020). Nepotism: Boon or Bane? Retrieved from: https://shouts.site/nepotism-boon-or-bane/

Marsh, R. (1960). Bureaucratic Restraints on Nepotism in the Ch'ing Period. The Journal of Asian Studies.

Matyszak, P. (2014). The Roman Empire. OneWorld Publications.

Wikipedia (2015). Nepotism. Retrieved from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org

Plummer, J. (ed.). (2012). Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia: Perceptions, Realities, and the Way Forward for Key Sectors. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Funtecha, H. (2017). Bridging the Gap. Retrieved from: https://www.thenewstoday.info

Sherman, P. (1980). The Meaning of Nepotism. The American Naturalist. Vol 116, No. 4.

Saibaba. M.R. (2017). Nepotism in The Workplace: Is A Moral Issue. Retrieved from: http://dameanusabun.blogspot.com 

Tendero, A. P. (2000). Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the Philippines Revised Edition.

The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission Chapter 8, Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292

 

Euthanasia and its morality

 

By: MARY ANN M. REYES

Divine Word College of Laoag

 

Abstract:

Euthanasia is undeniably one of the most pressing social issues of our times. It is a topic that has been the subject of debate and arguments. Euthanasia is a relevant concern in human rights discussions as it not only touches ethical but also practical, religious, and legal issues about a patient's right to end his life. To provide background, this paper aims to define euthanasia and its four types. It also presents the arguments of proponents for both the opposing and supporting sides as every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. Every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. This paper hopes that the following articles will provide insight into these issues.

Keywords: euthanasia, types of euthanasia, anti-euthanasia, pro-euthanasia

 Introduction

The marvels brought about by the expanding availability of fast-pacing medical technology not only bring extraordinary opportunities to save human lives. By prolonging the agonizing journey of a terminally-ill patient, they can also be a source of significant weight in terms of suffering and medical expenses.

The word “Euthanasia” comes from the Greek words “Eu” meaning good and “Thanatos” meaning death. Put together it means good death. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, then, is an act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons who are suffering from a painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures. The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death”.

Euthanasia is executed at an individual’s consent most especially if someone is suffering from a terminal illness. Moreover, the decision to administer euthanasia can also be made by the patient’s family or doctors. However, it must be noted that only if the patient is critically ill such that he or she cannot reasonably decide or think, can a decision by the family or doctors be arrived at.

Euthanasia has given way to unprecedented debates in society because it involves several considerations and arguments. The most significant of these are practical, religious, and ethical issues. Besides, euthanasia is seen as a challenge to doctors since it veers away from medical ethics. In some countries, it is considered illegal. Therefore, approaches towards euthanasia require caution since it can lead to legal repercussions (Nicholson, 2000).

Types of Euthanasia

There are four types of euthanasia – active, passive, voluntary, and nonvoluntary. Healthline.com lists these different types of euthanasia when they're used, and what type is chosen depends on a variety of factors, including someone's outlook and level of consciousness.

 When most people think of euthanasia, they think of a doctor directly ending someone’s life. This is known as active euthanasia. Purposely giving someone a lethal dose of a sedative is considered active euthanasia. It is sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia is sometimes described as withholding or limiting life-sustaining treatments and support such as a ventilator or feeding tube so that a person passes more quickly. A doctor may also prescribe increasingly high doses of pain-killing medication. Over time, the doses may become toxic.

If someone makes a conscious decision to seek help with ending their life, it’s considered voluntary euthanasia. The person must give their full consent and demonstrate that they fully understand what will happen.

Nonvoluntary euthanasia involves someone else deciding to end someone's life. A close family member usually makes the decision. This is generally done when someone is completely unconscious or permanently incapacitated. It usually involves passive euthanasia, such as withdrawing life support from someone who's showing no signs of brain activity.

 Arguments

In general, arguments over euthanasia are primarily based on practical, religious, and ethical, and legal issues.  The following presents arguments of both opponents and proponents surrounding euthanasia.

 Opposing Euthanasia

Individuals and groups opposing euthanasia support the following arguments (BBC, n.d):

Euthanasia is against the word and will of God. Religious people don’t argue that we cannot kill ourselves or get others to do it. They know that we can do it because God has provided us with free will. They argue that while it is true that we can do it, it would be wrong to do so. To kill oneself or to get someone to do it for us, is to deny God.

Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life. Anti-euthanasia arguments posit that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life. They argue that euthanasia devalues life because it interferes with the fundamental processes of human life. They claim that death should be perceived as a natural phenomenon like birth and life as a whole. Religious people hold that birth and death constitute the fundamental life processes that were created by God, and they are ought to be respected because they are sacred. They further claim that life is a sacred gift from God that has to be treated with dignity (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002).

Suffering may have value. Religious people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive value in suffering. Christianity teaches that suffering allows the sufferer to share in Christ’s agony and his redeeming sacrifice. Suffering draws a person interiorly close to Christ. Pope John Paul II said that "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls."

Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives, especially those of the disabled and sick, are worth less than others. Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message that it's better to be dead than sick or disabled. The connotation is that some lives are not worth living. This belief not only exposes the sick or disabled to risk, but it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are still alive. But from a disabled person's perspective, all people regardless of capacities have equal rights and opportunities to lead good lives. Many persons with disabilities enjoy living despite the obstacles. On one hand, many individuals who do not have disabilities don’t enjoy life, but no one is threatening them. In a disabled person’s eyes, the proper approach is to provide them with appropriate support and not to kill them because the quality of a person’s life should not be assessed by others, more so, that the quality of a disabled person’s life should not be assessed without providing the proper support and treatments first.

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to nonvoluntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable. Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before nonvoluntary euthanasia would start to happen. This is called the slippery slope argument. Simply put, it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may unwittingly start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

 Euthanasia affects other people’s rights, not just those of the patient. Euthanasia is usually discussed from the point of view of the person who wants to die. What it fails to mention sometimes is that it affects other people, and similarly, their rights should also be considered. These other persons include the family and friends, the medical people and other caregivers, other people in a similar circumstance who may feel pressured into making the same decision, and lastly the society in general.

 

Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary. Good palliative care is the alternative to euthanasia. If it is available to every patient, it would certainly reduce the desire for death to be brought about sooner. Anti-euthanasia groups believe that the introduction of euthanasia will reduce the availability of palliative care in the community because health systems will want to choose the most cost-effective ways of dealing with dying patients. Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good palliative care for the terminally ill because it undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives, it will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill and it undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying and good pain relief

There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia. Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to create a regulated system for euthanasia that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia. Opponents of euthanasia have raised fears over the regulation of the issue, since it may compromise medical ethics (Nicholson, 2000). For instance, approval of euthanasia as part of the medical procedures may compromise the performance of healthcare professionals (Dobson & Galbraith, 2000).

 

Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors. Doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die. This argument often appears as 'doctors should not be allowed to play God'. Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions about euthanasia, any legalization of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated, puts doctors in an unacceptable position of power.

 Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives. The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end their lives. People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those who love and care for them. They may be a burden, but those who love them may be happy to bear that burden.  It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or coercion to get people to request euthanasia when they don't want it. The last few months of a patient's life are often the most expensive in terms of medical and other care. Shortening this period through euthanasia could be seen as a way of relieving pressure on scarce medical resources, or family finances.

 Pro-euthanasia

Individuals and groups supporting euthanasia set out the following arguments (http://www.bbc.co.uk):

 People have an explicit right to die. Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way, and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible, and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. Another idea is that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this.

 

A separate right to die is not necessary, because other human rights imply the right to die. Without creating or acknowledging a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right. Individuals and groups that support euthanasia argue that the right to life includes the right to die. The right to life is not a right simply to exist; it is a right to life with a minimum quality and value. For them, death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is one of the most important events in human life. Therefore, people have the right to try and make their life events as good as possible and being so, they have the right to try to make their dying also as good as possible.

Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned without violating their rights then that action is morally acceptable. Persons in favor of euthanasia argue that in some cases, euthanasia promotes this belief and therefore is morally acceptable.

 

Allowing people to die may free up scarce health resources. Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority. In most countries, health resources are scarce. As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get prompt access to the facilities they need for treatment. At the same time, health resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and who, for their reasons, would prefer not to continue living. Allowing such people to resort to euthanasia will not only let them have what they want, but it will also free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.

 It is possible to regulate euthanasia. Individuals and groups in favor of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia cannot be controlled by proper regulation. On the other hand, they also acknowledge that some problems will remain. For instance, it will be difficult to deal with patients who want to commit euthanasia for selfish reasons or to pressure vulnerable patients into dying.

 Euthanasia satisfies the criterion that moral rules must be universalizable. Formally stated, a rule is universalizable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey. The only rules which are morally good are those which can be universalized. As put forward by Immanuel Kant, one of the commonly accepted principles in ethics is that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule should be accepted. In other words, one should only do something if he or she is willing for anybody to do the same things in exactly similar circumstances, regardless of who they are. Persons in favor of euthanasia argue that giving everybody the right to have a good death through euthanasia is acceptable as a universal principle and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable.

 Conclusion

Euthanasia has indeed raised some ethical concerns in our society and these concerns not only delved upon ethics but also on practical and religious issues. With the huge differences in viewpoints and perceptions, euthanasia encompasses enormous uncertainties.  Therefore, different individuals and groups view it from varied differing perspectives giving way to the emergence of two opposing sides, the anti-euthanasia, and the pro-euthanasia. However, whatever their concerns and arguments are, as listed in this paper, there exists no universal concurrence over whether euthanasia is right or wrong. Euthanasia has indeed put mankind into some kind of ethical dilemma.

 References:

BBC (n.d). Anti-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk

Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/euthanasia in the Terminally Ill. Canadian Psychology,41, 7-23.

Euthanasia: Understanding the Facts. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com

Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death yet for European Euthanasia Debate. The Hastings Center Report, May-June 2000

 BBC (n.d). Pro-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk

Shiflett, D., & Carroll, V. (2002). Christianity on Trial: Arguments against Anti-Religious Bigotry. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.