Euthanasia is a permanent solution to a long term problem. Offering euthanasia to patients who are near death is a controversial topic with a plethora of opinions. Supporters of euthanasia say that it is justified as long as the patient gives permission. Euthanasia is not justifiable due to the ethical and legal issues, the disoriented state of mind of euthanized patients, and religious beliefs that condemn euthanasia. A British physician, Lord Platt of Cambridge, said that a majority of doctors are hesitant to administer the actual euthanization.
It is sad and amazing the extreme measure one had to go through to accomplish his or her death. More and more Americans are speaking out and fighting for the right to die. This however goes against all morals and ethical codes, for a physician’s role to sustain life, not take it away. Although euthanasia and assisted suicide is not morally and ethically accepted, it should be an individual issue for those who face imminent death because death should be a personal choice, because death should be without unnecessary pain and suffering, and because most importantly death should be peaceful. Granted, euthanasia and physician suicide assisted seem to threaten the traditional medical values.
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”).
The topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is very controversial. People who support euthanasia say that it is someone 's right to end their own life in the case of a terminal illness. Those in favor of this right consider the quality of life of the people suffering and say it is their life and, therefore, it is their decision. The people against euthanasia argue that the laws are in place to protect people from corrupt doctors. Some of the people who disagree with assisted suicide come from a religious background and say that it is against God’s plan to end one 's life.
(Baird 1989) In medieval times, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers opposed active euthanasia, although the Christian Church has always accepted passive euthanasia. Conflicting opinion is seen to be found when people talk about euthanasia. Some say it is good because people should have the right to choose what they want to happen to themselves. If they choose to end their suffering they should be able to do it without being made to feel like they have done something wrong. Some lay some guidelines and say... ... middle of paper ... ...he same time, it is ending the person's life that is the most valuable thing a person may ever hope to own.
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.
Proponents of physician-assisted suicide clearly want to relieve suffering, and show mercy. What could be wrong with that? What is wrong is that accomplishing this good entails violating not only the fourth commandment, "You shall not kill", but also the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods." For in assisting in a suicide we are indeed assuming the role of God, taking life and death in our hands, forgetting that we are the creatures and that God is God. A person does not own his life, for he did not create it.
A death where the recipient believes their life is not worth living and they want an end to their suffering. Thanks to modern medicines, the end of suffering can be carried out in a humane way. Therefore to directly associate this commandment to euthanasia is misleading and the text should rather read, 'Thou shalt not help to die'. A majority of the religious opposition to euthanasia comes from the
As a matter of fact, in the International Medical Code of Ethics and the American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics fully states that the act of euthanasia violates their role and shall not be performed. Just because of the mere fact that physicians have the knowledge and medical equipment to kill does not indicate a physician should be permitted to perform euthanasia. Dan Brock states, “… permitting physicians to perform euthanasia, it is said, would be incompatible with their fundamental moral and professional commitment as healers to care for patients and to protect life” (77). Dan Brock also raises the question, if euthanasia became a common practice that was performed by physicians, would we eventually fear or lose trust in our physicians?
2- Doctors may give a wrong diagnosis to a patient, and the patient may choose to go with euthanasia believing that they have a terminal illness. 3- Scientists would be discouraged to research new cures for terminal illnesses. Yet another popular argument against euthanasia is the medical ethics argument. Opponents of euthanasia quote a piece from the International Code of Medical Ethics that states 'A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception '. They believe that legalizing euthanasia would encourage health professionals to abandon their empathy and compassion, and consider ending patients’ lives as just a routine administrative task.