As Dave Anderson said, “it can be as savage as a freak accident or as simple as falling down the stairs to put you in a world of excruciating pain”. Although, no one ever wanted to wish for it, for those who had an unfortunate condition of being diagnosed with incurable disease must have a choice out of it. Beyond the implication of human’s right to live or die, he or she may decide on euthanasia because no one wants to suffer from pain. Not only suffering from the illness but the patient and family member also suffering from crippling debt that often can be brutal and expensive; letting patients went through a long torment just to give them extra days or months. The upshot of this are expensive treatments that the patient has constantly demanded that they rather die.
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.
Needless suffering will continue in the US if the laws are not changed to reflect the current changes in medical care. The first argument for euthanasia is that commit suicide should be legal in general because there are people who’s being treated for so long and there’s nothing that could heal them to live longer. Why shouldn’t they allow the patients to choose their lives? So in order for them not to suffer they should have the permission from a doctor to commit suicide. It’s painful for those who wants to end their lives, but it’s more painful if
There are many different reasons why people would want to euthanize someone, but here are just a few of them. The reasons are – to put themselves out of the misery of their terminal illness, as they only see physical and emotional pain in their future because some rules are better than none, human beings have the right to die how and when they want to because sometimes a life is just not worth living anymore and euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. One acting on their own violation, with their right mind should be able to make a decision on how they live and die without a government or religious group interfere. Euthanasia should be
Of course, it is really hard to fight back the pains and endure it. However, people still want to live as long as they can. Euthanasia is nothing less than forcefully ending ones life. Legalized euthanasia would not be effective because some people will ask to die by pressure, some irresponsible doctors would let the patients die or kill them and it will ruin the future of medical advancement. Works Cited “Doctors and power”.
Health practitioners take an oath to safeguard life at all cost, this implies that a doctor should not kill at any given moment. When he decides to shorten the patient’s life this is going against the oath he or she took in the first place. Active euthanasia is intentionally ending another’s life slowly. It’s morally wrong to deny anyone the right to live. If we agree that some people can choose when others would die this is murder in its entirety.
Euthanasia should be legalize in the United States because it gives an alternative for people who suffer every day due to a terminal illness, but it should be the last resort a patient should take. People who are against euthanasia claim that it is unethical and morally wrong to take someone’s life away. According to the article “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” euthanasia is a nice word that replaces the word murder (Doug). The author claims that people will use “terminal illness” to murder people without their consent. People that are on a vegetable state and cannot depend of themselves are force to accept the decisions of others.
I believe that withholding treatment from a patient is wrong, because in a way that is like slowly murdering that person. If you withhold treatment from a patient they are going to go through probably more pain or sufferi... ... middle of paper ... ...so think that it is wrong to withhold treatment from a patient, and make the patient suffer even more. I also think that it is wrong to let a newborn baby wither to die, because that child should have a chance to live, and to be all it can be. In the long run I think that doctor's should do what is morally right, and let the suffering patient keep receiving treatments, until they die, but sometimes it is too much for the patient to take, and so I believe that it is the patients choice. I disagree with James Rachels essay, because I think that it is kind of like a cruel and unusual punishment to withdraw treatments from a patient.
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.
Most people believe in quality of life over quantity so with the availability of euthanasia people can dictate their lives and have the dignity of a chosen death. To deny an individual of the dignity of a chosen death, they are forced against their will to live out the rest of their life in agony and discomfort. Diaconescu (2012) believes that the law should not restrict individuals from their choice to preserve their quality of life in their own way. If an individual feels that dignity is unattainable due to the progression of a terminal illness, then taking recourse though assisted dying should to be a legitimate option. Keown (2002) comments that the main hindrance to the allowing of euthanasia has proved to be the objection that, even if they were morally acceptable in certain 'hard cases ', voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could not be effectively controlled; society would slide down a 'slippery slope ' to the killing of patients who did not make a free and informed request, or for whom palliative care would have offered an alternative.