If a patient is not seen to recover at any stage and, after all treatment possible, still remains incurable, then they should have the choice of euthanasia. Euthanasia would be a blessing to the critically ill patients and their families. However, under the above conditions I still can see where much abuse could occur resulting in euthanasia being seen as inhumane. If a patient who was depressed due to a feeling of pressure from home/friends/family the individual s choice for euthanasia would not be rational because there are treatments available to help deal with depression such as regular visits to a psychiatrist or the anti-depressants available from a medical practitioner. People must consider that euthanasia must be reasoned and not used as a temporary pain relief of something easily cured, but still what must be considered is what influence their can be on an individuals choice, example; pressure from family or feeling a burden.
For these reasons, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legalized on a federal level because of the advantages they constitute: such as the salvaging of organs, lower healthcare costs, and cessation of pain. Furthermore, individuals have a right to die and should be able to depart with dignity and peace. As previously stated, a primary benefit of these procedures is that the patient may choose to donate their organs. There are few medical circumstances that allow a patient to donate their organs, but this is one of them. Typically, only people who are brain dead or in a vegetative state can donate.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights!
I stand for Pro-Choice arguments for legalising euthanasia due to these main reasons. Firstly, it is clear that euthanasia should be legal as it is a means to end a patient’s sufferings quickly and humanely with or without the consent of the affected party. According to a set of euthanasia statistics verified in the last quarter of 2013, 86% of the public supports euthanasia especially if the patient is terminally ill or on life support. This vast difference between those of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is an indication that euthanasia plays a significant role at the end of a critically sick person’s life because death is usually slow, painful, and undignified. I believe that euthanasia not only helps the patients who are dying, but also assists their family members by shortening their grief.
Legalizing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Although euthanasia and assisted suicide are frowned upon, legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide would be beneficial to society. Through many forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide, people choose to end their own lives to relieve their suffering, to keep their autonomy and their desire to be able to perform their daily activities, and to prevent the fear of burdening their family. Even though euthanasia and assisted suicide are not considered the norm by doctors, the goal of a doctor should be to relieve the pain of a patient in any way the patient requests. Death is defined by “the absence of life” (Merriam-Webster). Many people have a different perception on when a person dies.
A public opinion poll by Angus Reid showed that 80% of Canadians support the right of grievously ill patients to have medical assistance to die. With medically assisted dying legalized, patients would be able to die the way they want to, surrounded by the ones they love, as themselves instead of dying a slow, painful death caused by their medical condition. "Control gives peace of mind, and sometimes that is all that is needed." If someone with a medical condition does not want to let death wait any longer, they need access for t... ... middle of paper ... ...e idea experienced the different types of pain firsthand, perhaps they would change their opinion about medically assisted dying. Enabling patients with the option of medically assisted dying not only allows individuals to be entitled to a peaceful death, but it is also a desire to have suffering ended now rather than having patients living the few remaining days of more suffering and debility.
Some argue that "patients whose illnesses cause them unbearable suffering should be permitted to end their distress by having a physician perform euthanasia"(Singer and Seigler p.381), while others on the same side argue that the decision to turn toward euthanasia is one's own; that "the well-recognized right of patients to control their medical treatment includes the right to request and receive euthanasia" (Singer and Seigler,381). These two claims are based on the rights of the individual but must be "balanced against the legal, political, and religious prohibitions against killing that have always existed in society generally and in medicine particularly" (Singer and Seigler,382). Euthanasia should be illegal because it creates too many risks and is morally wrong. Four of the main risks euthanasia would bring about if it were legalized fall under what experts call "involuntary euthanasia." The first one is "crypthanasia."
Euthanasia Because our medical technology has improved so much, we are literally able to postpone death. People suffering from incurable diseases or injuries that would have died are being kept alive on machines. Because of this, people have argued for years over the legality of euthanasia. Some believe people should die with honor and not suffer. Others simply call it assisted suicide.
Euthanasia should not be accepted as part of the standard way of dying because it not only contradicts the most respected moral principle of ‘thou shalt not kill’, but also good medical practice. The four principles of biomedical ethics can be used as a framework to help guide moral decision-making in difficult situations including euthanasia. Arguments against the moral permissibility of euthanasia which are based on respecting autonomy and non-maleficence outweigh those related to beneficence and justice. In any case of euthanasia, careful evaluation of the interests of the various parties involved is crucial because ethical principles can be contentious at times and their meanings could be interpreted differently from theory to theory (Robison
The dignity of the patient lies in their “capacity to direct their lives” (Brock 75). According to Stephen G. Potts, a patient might seek euthanasia for the benefits of other people (79). In his argument against VAE, the p... ... middle of paper ... ...uffer. The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives.