Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death. “The most good is done by allowing people to carry out their own affairs with as little intrusion by government as possible” (Gittelman 372). Dying is a part of life and since it is your body you should have complete and full control over it. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be available for patients because they have the right to choses there “final exit”(Manning 26). Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27).
Len Doyal argues how euthanasia can be legal because physicians choose not to help their patients, but they can take their lives and experiment with it (65). When their decisions to try to benefit the patient’s life in the future go wrong, they only made them hurt more instead of helping them hurt less. Some say it is a crime, others say they are doing right. Doctors have a duty to help patients out as much as they can. People have the right to die and if they make the final decision that they do want to die, doctors should understand the patients decision and assist the needs and wants, concluding that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should become legal in various areas of the world.
It would surely be better to legalize and regulate the treatment known as “euthanasia” and minimize the factor of abusing it rather than not having any rules at all. Patients may be at less of a risk if there were specific rules to be followed when the treatment of euthanasia is requested. A patient shouldn’t have to wait and suffer until their bodies can take no more. A patient is the possessor of his or her own life. We humans can do whatever we want with our possessions.
In the context of euthanasia, helping someone end their suffering may be viewed as doing more good than harm. This is said to be in line with the moral view that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, out of compassion and mercy (Norval and Gwyther, 2003). However, it can be argued that a further step in beneficence is the “duty to prevent harm to others” (Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1987), which falls under the principle of non-maleficence. Thus appropriate and optimal palliative care should be the right approach instead of euthanasia. Euthanasia advocates also set forth an argument based on distributive justice to support active voluntary euthanasia.
To be able to have control over the fear of death by having the ability to end life on your own terms is the greatest relief in many individual’s eyes. Terminally ... ... middle of paper ... ... moral issues of physician assisted suicide are controversial as it is compared to abortion and death row topics. Many argue is morally acceptable for a dying person who is choosing to escape the unbearable suffering through physician assisted suicide as it is seen as humane. Additionally, it is a physician’s job to lessen patients suffering, which justifies providing aid in the end of life wants for an individual. The arguments rely a great deal on the respect for individual self want, which recognizes the constitutional rights of competent people to choose the timing and manner of their death, when faced with terminal illness.
When a person commits an act of euthanasia, he/she brings about the death of another person because he/she believes that the latter’s present existence is so bad that he/she would be better off dead. The word euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means “good” and thanatos means “death”. The meaning of euthanasia is “the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies” (Religious Tolerance). However, euthanasia has many different meanings, which tends to create confusion. It is important to differentiate between the various terms used in discussing euthanasia.
Which he argues it’s a line that never should be crossed because it could lead to the patients being wrongfully misleaded. Seeing this is understandable that going ahead with Active Euthanasia and PAS could lead to other consequences. But it should never get to the point where a patient is pressured or forced against they’re autonomy. In conclusion, Euthanasia is “good death” and should result in that. Having a patient like Diane’s death should end in a non suffering way.
Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because
Finally, the health care worker can take active measures to end the patient's life, such as by directly administering a lethal dose of a drug. This practice is called active euthanasia since the health care worker's action is the direct cause of the patient's death. Active euthanasia is the most controversial of the four options and is currently illegal in the United States. However, several right to die organizations are lobbying for the laws against active euthanasia to change. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia.
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.