Many see euthanasia as inhumane and religiously erroneous, but we must view this decision from the eyes of the suffering patient. The rights we are given and promised should include the right to death, in the event that it will do more good than harm to the individual. Due to such reasons, euthanasia should be legalized and deemed one of the matters that the government does not have a hand in.
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”).
357). He argues Bishop Sullivan’s essay on legalizing euthanasia; the slippery-slope: if a killing was allowed, it would make the world a bad place. According to Philippa Foot, she thinks that active euthanasia is morally right in some individual case (Luper and Brown, p. 358). Active euthanasia should be acceptable because elderly or ill people who are suffering and wants to put an end to their life. However, according to Rachel, he says that “we ought to enforce a rigorous rule against it.” (Luper and Brown, p. 358).
This also means an ordinary human right such as nutrition or hydration cannot be with held to induce death. The injury or disease must be the cause of death not the act of the withdrawing the life support system. Active euthanasia is the direct and intentional killing of someone when given consent or consent can’t be given. Active euthanasia usually takes the form of a lethal dose of medication to ensure a painless death. Active euthanasia has been requested by people suffering from diseases and syndromes that have reduced their quality of life to a point at which that believe that death is a better option than living in their pained and often vegetative state.
If we agree that some people can choose when others would die this is murder in its entirety. Everything must be done to prevent death since life is valuable and desirable to pursue and possess. If one chooses to die this is termed as suicide and it’s not acceptable. It can be concluded that active euthanasia denies patients the right to live and should not be accept... ... middle of paper ... ...surers find euthanasia cheaper than extended medical care and due to this elderly people will be pressured to accept active euthanasia other than waiting for their day of death. Therefore, instead of active euthanasia palliative care should be considered since they do help in treatment of pain.
Euthanasia Euthanasia is a medicinal practice that ending a life for getting rid of torment. In academia field mercy killing is also called Euthanasia. Like all things that deal with life and death, it has been a controversial subject of debate due to its seems to violate a person 's fundamental right to live.There are three different ways to achieve this goal, which including voluntary Euthanasia, involuntary Euthanasia and non-voluntary Euthanasia. When the patient refuse the painful medical treatment and refuse to eat and ask for help with dying, this situation is called voluntary Euthanasia. As a law, voluntary euthanasia is accepted in a number of countries, including some states in the United States and in Canada.
Religious creed like the Bible and the Koran openly condemn suicide and murder. The act of euthanasia involves extinguishing the life force of a person. The Abrahamic religions view this as murder and a direct violation of God’s teachings to his people (Gielen, Branden, Broeckaert 1-17). Euthanasia is given to nearly-dead patients for the purpose of alleviating suffering. Many doctors however, do not want to violate their Hippocratic Oath as well as encroach on their religious beliefs.
This would, under general Christian views, be just because it was an act of love, and after all that is what Christianity revolves around. One question, that must be answered is, ‘Is there a difference between killing and letting someone die, when it comes to an argu... ... middle of paper ... ...f the family would suffer as a result of his death, then he should not die in an unnatural way. But, it is more likely that they will be suffering with him, and will feel the relief if he does not, and they do not have to watch him, live any longer in his painful condition. If this is the case, then they should back his feelings, and give him their support. It has been said that although the earth does not belong to the people, God did create humans to make their own decisions on it.
Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a potentially dangerous situation. Doctors could find themselves better off financially if a seriously ill, or disables person, chooses to die rather than receive long term care. I think euthanasia goes against the natural law inclination to survive, and that we must do what we can for self-preservation. If we begin to deem certain situations and conditions unworthy of living, there may be no need to improve the quality of life or medical care. Why bother?
Or should euthanasia be categorized as a crime? Despite everything legalizing euthanasia, “mercy killing” may possibly develop to a point where people at a certain stage of illness would be expected to freely be killed. Even by classifying euthanasia as “death with dignity,” society is accepting the message that suicide is a reasonable response to life’s problems. So is euthanasia a corrupt choice? Religiously evidence would point out that many Christians are against euthanasia.