On the other end, such assistance, or methods, are considered as a form of murder. As a “mercy killing”, people often inaccurately voice that human euthanasia is in a patient's best interests, disregarding the threats of: the slippery slope effect, no regulatory system, and sanctity of life infringement. A frequent argument against the legalization of human euthanasia is that it will begin a slippery slope towards involuntary (euthanizing of a patient without his or her consent) and non-voluntary (euthanizing of a patient not capable of giving consent) euthanasia . Society is only looking to legalize voluntary euthanasia, but the doors will open to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, two methods of death that could easily be written off as murder. The slippery slope argument claims that if an action, such as euthanasia, were to be permitted, then society will be led down the slippery slope, or be permitting other actions that are morally wrong, “in general form, it means that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted” (“Anti-euthanasia”).
Although the general public does not recognize passive euthanasia as doctor assisted suicide it is still a form of euthanasia that is technically legal. Passive euthanasia is when the underlying cause of death is the disease. When terminally ill people refuse to be kept alive by machines or medication, which is within their legal rights, they’re aiding in the advancement of their own death, which is a form of passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when the cause of death is inflicted by the physician in an already dying patient. Active euthanasia places the blame upon the physician because they are the primary cause of death, this is why active euthanasia is illegal and seen as much worse than passive.
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?
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.
Euthanasia is very controversial in the sense, many argued that it is assisted suicide and could be a cover for outright murder. Others have also argue that, in hastening the dying process of a patient is not apparently the way to relieve suffering. In contrast, regardless of a patient’s medical condition, euthanasia is against medical ethics, is against most religions, and it is not the ultimate answer to end suffering patients. Physicians and doctors have a code of ethics that’s guide their practices. Euthanasia is a direct violation of the medical oath which states that Physician-assisted suicide, like eu... ... middle of paper ... ...during the time of a terminal illness that people have a unique opportunity to reflect on the way they have lived their lives, to make amends for wrongs done, to provide for the future security of loved ones and to prepare mentally and spiritually for their own death.
Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27). They should be permitted the opportunity to die with a sense of pride and dignity, not shame, pain and suffrage. To make anyone live longer against their will and is simply immoral. By denying patient the option of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide the government is vi... ... middle of paper ... ...ns. Patients should not be so medically ill that they are unable to make this decision.
All through time, America has denied the right of doctors to practice different forms of Euthanasia on humans. The ideas against and in favor of this particular matter are both worthy of being considered. Some of the arguments you see from the people who are against Euthanasia are such as: the affect it’s going to have on the medical community, if it’s going to lead to “convenience killing” etc. While I think a lot of their arguments are valid, I argue in favor of legalizing active euthanasia. The definition of Euthanasia is: “the practice of ending a life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering”.
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.
In this paper I have argued that: Health professionals should aim to improve health and suffering and not kill because it becomes overbearing, If hospitals had good palliative care then euthanasia wouldn’t be necessary, A patient who is in the process of dying isn’t in the right state of mind to make a decision such as ending their life, If euthanasia becomes legal, it doesn’t allow research to find cures for chronic illnesses, Euthanasia gives too much power to the doctors, Euthanasia destroys societal respect for life, and Giving the doctors this much power essentially leads to a variation of murder. Therefore, it is morally wrong for someone to kill a person; even it is on medical terms.
And who has the right to deny a person a peaceful ending to their life and stop the suffering permanently? Euthanasia is a very controversial topic and those in favour argue that it’s the patients choice what they do with their life in cases of terminal illnesses the death is inevitable so what is the point in prolonging the process? Others argue that Voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia and the termination of people deemed as undesirable. A strong ethical argument against the use of euthanasia is that, Lord Walton, chairman of a House of Lords committee looking into euthanasia says: “We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.” Since involuntary euthanasia is indistinguishable from murder it will be hard to identify and regulate murder cases as they can be passed off as involuntary euthanasia leading to the severity of murder as a crime being mediocre since people can escape the consequence using euthanasia. There is also concern that doctors are bestowed with too much power and... ... middle of paper ... ... used in other situations other than terminal illness is old age and being able to die with dignity before they are unable to go through with simple tasks such as going toilet alone, this is usually they don’t burden their families and retain pride.