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.
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”). The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics concluded it is virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia are truly voluntary. The idea that patients should have the right to decide when to end their life would impose on the doctors a duty to kill, thus... ... middle of paper ... ...not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends. It affirms life and regards death as a normal process, neither hastening nor postponing death, but providing relief from suffering” (“Anti-euthanasia”).
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. The Psychological interpretation does not prove why euthanasia should be illegal because of self- defense. He later states the American Law: the burden of proof; excuse and justification; the criminal
This quote essentially states that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong. The cessation of necessary treatment to prolong the life of the body by the patient or the immediate family (passive euthanasia) when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, however, is permissible. His second premise is that “active euthanasia is a more efficient and humane means to ending the patient’s suffering than passive euthanasia.” To defend this claim, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die in a matter of days even if treatment is continued. The patient does not wish to live on in agony and asks the doctor to cease treatment.
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions.
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.
There is an important distinction between voluntary euthanasia where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals wishes and involuntary euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know about the decision and has not approved it in advance. I will be dealing specifically with the concept of voluntary euthanasia, for it seems intuitive that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also profoundly immoral. Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate their claims, many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and empirical examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician- assisted-suicide. Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I will mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the Hippocratic oath which reads, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" as a reason to oppose euthanasia.
This shows that people understand and sympathize with the pain a loved one can feel. It is for the reasons above that I believe that euthanasia should be legalized under the premise that the patient must have terrible quality of life and be suffering from a terminal illness and that a physician will administer the injection under the direction of two other physicians as to stop the possibility of misdiagnoses. I also believe that a person who has been in a coma or on life support but still has no chance of survival also have the right to euthanasia. Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic as it can make someone questions their deepest belief into what they believe is the meaning of living.
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 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.