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.
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!
Kamisar argues that once euthanasia is legalized, it cannot be constrained to the terminally ill, and the reasons as to why life may seem intolerable to a reasonable person are discussed; however, to contend that euthanasia is justifiable, “is to show oneself out of touch with the depth arid complexity of human motives” (par. 32). If one agrees to reasons as to why euthanasia is justifiable, then there is no understanding to the intricacy of human impulse. The legalization of euthanasia would make it acceptable for people to be euthanized for other reasons than suffering and being terminally
We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia. Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be.
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”).
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.
I believe some of the arguments against active euthanasia can be dismissed, and some of the arguments can be overridden by the importance of an individual’s self-determination and well-being. Before arguing my first point, it is necessary to understand the difference between killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take place in passive euthanasia, is morally permissible and killing, which is the action considered to take place in active euthanasia, is not morally permissible.... ... middle of paper ... ...he moral permissibility argument for active euthanasia. I have argued that the legalization of active euthanasia would not lead to the decline in medical care, erosion of the right to refuse treatment, and widespread abuse of the law. I have made it is obvious that the motivations for legalizing active euthanasia are all positive and have good intentions to promote the will of the individual, and if implemented in the correct way, the results of legalizing active euthanasia will be beneficial to society as a whole.
It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on "One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia..." (Mappes 57). The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong.
In most cases, passive euthanasia is permitted but whether or not active euthanasia should be allowed creates a major controversy. (Rachel,452) The question, should a person be allowed to end their life through active euthanasia when they are terminally ill and the pain of dying is unbearable, seems easy enough to answer. Many sound arguments and well presented cases refuting euthanasia, however, have proved it to be ethically, morally, and legally wrong. The pro-euthanasia case is based on two main claims. 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).
The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue. Daniel Callahan, author of When Self-Determination Runs Amok, is against any social policy that would allow for PAS to be practiced. Callahan believes that the argument for PAS does not have a firm foundation, because self-determination and mercy, the two principles that are in support of PAS, may become separated (711). If mercy is seen as a core element in support of PAS, why restrict PAS only to those who can ask for it -- don't the unconscious or incompetent deserve mercy also?