By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
Euthanasia Euthanasia is a medicinal practice that ending a life for getting rid of torment. In academia field mercy killing is also called Euthanasia. Like all things that deal with life and death, it has been a controversial subject of debate due to its seems to violate a person 's fundamental right to live.There are three different ways to achieve this goal, which including voluntary Euthanasia, involuntary Euthanasia and non-voluntary Euthanasia. When the patient refuse the painful medical treatment and refuse to eat and ask for help with dying, this situation is called voluntary Euthanasia. As a law, voluntary euthanasia is accepted in a number of countries, including some states in the United States and in Canada.
Instead of considering death for a loved one, focus on creating cures and being optimistic about the situation. In conclusion, euthanasia is a freedom of choice and people have their own personal reasons to do so but it is not a practice that should be legalized. It is morally incorrect due to the fact that it could be compared to murder, anything such as recovery and miracles can happen to the sufferer and it sends out a negative message to the society. It violates the nature and dignity of human beings and is a wrongful death because its is not just dying, it is killing. Oxford University defines euthanasia as "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma" but since when was "killing" ever an option?
In this paper, I argue that euthanasia is wrong by responding to the claims implied in other terms which euthanasia is expressed exchangeably and understood by and large; ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’, and ‘doctor assisted suicide’. Mercy killing The term of ‘mercy killing’ sounds very contradictory. Mercy, by definition, is a kind or forgiving attitude toward somebody that you have the power to harm or right to punish. As a trait exhibited by generous people, mercy is considered to be a virtue which we ought to pursue. On the other hand, killing, taking the life of other or oneself, is thought to be almost always wrong, and is condemned universally in most cases.
It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on "One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia..." (Mappes 57). The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong.
However, according to Rachel, he says that “we ought to enforce a rigorous rule against it.” (Luper and Brown, p. 358). He gives two different forms: logical and psychology version of the slippery slope argument. Logical interpretation: in Bishop Sullivan view of euthanasia, he is saying that if we accept to allow euthanasia on a person that is suffering, we might kill others for no reason. However, Rachel objects to this argument proving that rational grounds do not prove that active euthanasia is legally prohibited in every case (Luper and Brown, p. 359). For instance, an ill person and a man with a disease, the first case; the person does not want to die, whereas, the second case the diseased patient wants to end his life using euthanasia which is acceptable to end the agony.
Many see euthanasia as inhumane and religiously erroneous, but we must view this decision from the eyes of the suffering patient. The rights we are given and promised should include the right to death, in the event that it will do more good than harm to the individual. Due to such reasons, euthanasia should be legalized and deemed one of the matters that the government does not have a hand in.
Active Euthenasia – From A Kantian Perspective Euthanasia is one of society's more widely debated moral issues of our time. Active euthanasia is; "Doing something, such as administering a lethal drug, or using other ways that will cause a person's death." In the other hand, Passive euthanasia is; "Stopping (or not starting) a treatment, that will make a person die, the condition of the person will cause his or her death." It seems that this one is not to debate, as much as the other one (active). I have chosen to look more closely at the issue of active euthanasia, and that it should not be considered ethical, by Kantian standards.
Should it be legal or illegal? Some of the people who are against Euthanasia have argued that due to religious reasoning’s, taking a life, no matter the circumstance is not in god’s plan. They believe that killing someone through euthanasia is in fact comparable to murder. This is also referred to as “assisted suici... ... middle of paper ... ... Universal Law. I believe Kant would be in favor of euthanasia because it would be the doctor’s duty to help a patient out by taking him/her out of misery by using euthanasia.
He believes euthanasia denies our basic human characteristic to survive through all medical problems and by taking the easy way out we may be “regarding ourselves as something less than human” (p.9, Williams). In addition, euthanasia does not leave room for the patient to have sudden recovery or fight through the pain and attempt to survive. According to Williams, this may confuse the person into thinking they only have death as an option when it is possible they could survive. Lastly, his support for euthanasia is the effect it has on medical care. Not only will euthanasia be seen