Euthanasia is technically still outlawed today, according to Dutch Penal Code Articles 293 and 294. However through various court decisions, many doctors have gotten around these articles, and are allowed to perform euthanasia if they follow guidelines. One of which is: “The death request must be voluntary.” However, a study done by Remmelink Report revealed 1,040 people died from involuntary euthanasia in 1991. The ineptness of enforcement to keep doctors within the boundaries of law is one of the reasons the recent Quebec euthanasia law is being challenged. The new law, scheduled to be in effect in December of 2015, will legalized euthanasia in Quebec.
In many countries the legalization of this practice is being debated in many countries. All doctors against assisted suicide, including the 44 percent in Canada, are on the right side of the argument. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unnatural, it violates the Hippocratic Oath, and laws are to extensive. Protecting life is the ethical view of society today, and legalizing euthanasia offsets that. Religious figures have recently welcomed the idea of getting God back into this debate.
How does artificially prolonging life respect human dignity? The act of Euthanasia poses many questions because there is an element of control. The following paper will examine why the control should be in the hands of the individual: Fundamentally, controlling one’s life should be an independent choice; additionally, the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia; moreover, many arguments against euthanasia are invalid. Patients who seek euthanasia for themselves are not harming other people. Sue Rodriquez had said “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this?
Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27). They should be permitted the opportunity to die with a sense of pride and dignity, not shame, pain and suffrage. To make anyone live longer against their will and is simply immoral. By denying patient the option of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide the government is vi... ... middle of paper ... ...ns. Patients should not be so medically ill that they are unable to make this decision.
37% of physicians who look after AIDS patients would be unlikely to assist a patient with established AIDS to commit suicide but 48% said they would be likely to do so (3). 48% of 1355 physicians in Washington state agree that euthanasia is never ethically justified but 33% said they would be willing to perform euthanasia (4). 40% of 1119 Michigan physicians involved in the care of terminally ill patients were in favor of legalization of assisted suicide and 17% favored prohibition of assisted suicide. 22% of physicians would participate in either assisted suicide or euthanasia (5). Regarding the views of the general public toward these two practices, two-thirds of oncology patients and of the public consider euthanasia and assisted suicide acceptable for cancer patients with unremitting pain (6).
This essay will discuss the financial benefits of allowing physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, doctors’ opinions on euthanasia, the consequences of Dr. Kevorkian’s actions, and why assisted suicide is the right choice for terminally ill people. Euthanasia is the patients’ choice and should be made legal in the United States and Dr. Kevorkian should not be sent to prison. When someone has no value of life, is miserable and suffering, and does not want to live that way anymore, should it not be their choice to end their life? The argument has been made that no one who is in any pain or suffering, has the right to end their life because “they don’t know what they’re saying,” but is that always the case? According to Somerville, “Western societies have rejected euthanasia as a solution for over two thousand years.
Dr. Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society, said, “ If we can’t even control the actions of one doctor—Jack Kevorkian—when physician-assisted suicide is illegal, how can we expect to regulate the actions of thousands of doctors where physician-assisted suicide is legal?” He makes a valid point, if Dr. Kevorkian couldn’t be controlled, what difference does having regulations in place make? Regulations won’t keep a vulnerable person from being pressured into choosing death. I believe that euthanasia, as a drastic course of action, should not be legal. In my opinion, the only exception to this that should exist is euthanasia being used to carry out punishment for a crime. Euthanasia should only be used to punish criminals who have committed a crime that the punishment of their crime is the death penalty.
A British physician, Lord Platt of Cambridge, said that a majority of doctors are hesitant to administer the actual euthanization. Another British physician, Lord Brock of London, has made the argument that if euthanasia was legal, the government would have to assume the role of a middleman. He argues that the overseeing of euthanizations by the government could prove to be very expensive. According to Brock, the government would be the ones to select a place for the euthanization, time, and the people who would administer the deadly drug. The cost for euthanizations would prove to be an unnecessary financial burden.
For instance, imagine a fifty ... ... middle of paper ... ...' This is a frightening prospect for then people could be forced into euthanasia for the sake of saving money. Laws against euthanasia and are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer. My View I agree that it would be extremely difficult to formulate a justice system for euthanasia that actually works. But my essay wasn't supposed to be about the new law that should be put in place; it was about the fact that the current law needs to change - fast.
To many people, it would seem that dying would be the most basic and fundamental right, more elementary than any constitutional freedom. However, this is not the case, as there is a great deal of controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Presently, the federal government has left each state to decide whether or not they agree with these methods. This is unfortunate since these processes should not only be prerogatives, but they also offer certain benefits. It would allow for organ donation which would help so many other people who may not survive without a transplant.