Therefore, instead of active euthanasia palliative care should be considered since they do help in treatment of pain. Conclusion Active euthanasia should not be justified or legalized drug therapy reduces the pain of a patient and instead of practicing active euthanasia. Palliative care centers are present and they can alleviate pain from a patient rather than ending his or her life. Life is sacred and we all need to protect. Active euthanasia will make medical professions to turn from caregivers to killers; they should protect human life at all cost.
So have them to choose between life and death, is an option and a decision they finally make. However, God will have mercy on those who are ill and suffering from dangerous disease. Finally, a last opinion held by those who disagree is that they’re completely against assisted suicide and euthanasia because there’re better way to address the needs of people with serious illnesses. Is to surround patients with love, support, and companionship those will heal the patients. Leaving their loved ones will be left alone and blame them selves of what happen to the patients.
For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively, imposing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual could be ended if the patient choose to do so. Although the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person to live a life of suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose. Euthanasia facilitates the choice making it the sympathetic choice and kind to that person 's
In my o... ... middle of paper ... ...illness to die because of the emotional burden that succeeds death. By ending the life of the ill, you can no longer enjoy and spend time with the said loved one before their due time quickly approaches. The bottom line for these believers is that ending a life is playing the God role and even those who don’t believe in God believe nature must take its course. In the end, death is a concrete option for those who are suffering and do not see living life as an option any longer. Many see euthanasia as inhumane and religiously erroneous, but we must view this decision from the eyes of the suffering patient.
Every person should have the right to end their life just like some other legal rights. As long as it is an individual’s own decision and the pain they are suffering is incurable, euthanasia can be justified. The opposition might argue against euthanasia because the practice of euthanasia can go against the will of god. With major religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism prohibiting suicide, they consider euthanasia as a sinful act. Their point of view is that the person or doctor assisting someone to death is interfering with God.
Either the latter do not really believe what they profess to believe – or something is wrong with rationality. One would tend to suspect the former. Suicide is very different from self sacrifice, avoidable martyrdom, engaging in life risking activities, refusal to prolong one’s life through medical treatment, euthanasia, overdosing and self inflicted death that is the result of coercion. What is common to all these is the operational mode: a death caused by one’s own actions. In all these behaviours, a foreknowledge of the risk of death is present coupled with its acceptance.
Death is a personal situation and decision in life. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save lives and by the government interfering and not legalizing it they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for patients; however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide?
The Personal Matter of Death The "right to die" argument is building moral, ethical and legal issues. The proponents for physician aid in dying are arguing from the perspective of compassion and radical individual autonomy. However, we cannot take the life of another human being in our hands and play the role of God. The case against physician-assisted suicide, which is essentially a moral case ("thou shall not kill; thou shall not help others to kill themselves"), is straightforward and clear. Proponents of physician-assisted suicide clearly want to relieve suffering, and show mercy.
The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong. Two, killing is incompatible with the professional responsibilities of the physician. And three, any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to detrimental social consequences (e.g., via a lessening of respect for human life)" (Mappes 57). Basically, a physician has a clear moral obligation to his/her patients, to cure and comfort. This "obligation" does not entail killing the patient.
We all die in an innumerable amount of ways and our autonomous decision to choose Active Euthanasia or PAS should be respected as should our choice to refuse euthanasia. The act of killing a patient, who has chosen to have a quick death, in my opinion, does not have the same ethical implications as letting a patient die when that patient can no longer bear living. I conclude that it is usually better to kill a patient if their life has become unbearable and they foresee no recovery of an acceptable quality of life, rather than to prolong the life which is unwanted.