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”).
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.
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!
The Author of the article claims that euthanasia is inherently wrong and can lead to drastic problems in our society with various support claims. In my paper, I shall summarize and evaluate the argument. In the end, I believe that it is unsuccessful and I will explain and defend my assessment. The Expert Panel on End of Life Decision- Making defines voluntary euthanasia as “an act undertaken by one person to kill another person whose life is no longer worth living to them in accordance with the wishes of that person” ( Shah et al). That is the definition I think of when speaking of euthanasia while including that a person can take their own life.
Those people also state that euthanasia has many more bad side effects in the long run. They believe that people would kill their parents faster just to get rid of them or to claim the insurance money sooner. Others say that euthanasia prevents people to see the value of suffering which may be something that god is trying to teach to all of us, if we commit euthanasia then we are turning are backs on god. Many people try to compare euthanasia with suicide but the fact remains that they are two totally different things and are carried out under extremely different circumstances. One author of a book about euthanasia stated that "Just as our society discourages suicide, it should discourage euthanasia because in both the person is running away from life and its responsibilities" (143).
On the contrary, Thomas D. Sullivan makes a case against Rachels claims by arguing that the real distinction steams from the traditional view, which is the intentional termination of human life is impermissible regardless of whether this goal is brought about by action or inaction. He argues that when one withholds means to sustain life is equal to killing. Although, instead of arguing about the distinctions of Euthanasia many people base their arguments on whether or not Euthanasia as a whole should be permissible in society. There is a grave distinction between passive and active euthanasia or in other words killing and letting die. Passive and Active Euthanasia have separate contributions but they can both in specific cases be not only permissible but helpful to a patient.
There is an important distinction between voluntary euthanasia where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals wishes and involuntary euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know about the decision and has not approved it in advance. I will be dealing specifically with the concept of voluntary euthanasia, for it seems intuitive that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also profoundly immoral. Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate their claims, many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and empirical examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician- assisted-suicide. Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I will mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the Hippocratic oath which reads, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" as a reason to oppose euthanasia.
Instead of considering death for a loved one, focus on creating cures and being optimistic about the situation. In conclusion, euthanasia is a freedom of choice and people have their own personal reasons to do so but it is not a practice that should be legalized. It is morally incorrect due to the fact that it could be compared to murder, anything such as recovery and miracles can happen to the sufferer and it sends out a negative message to the society. It violates the nature and dignity of human beings and is a wrongful death because its is not just dying, it is killing. Oxford University defines euthanasia as "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma" but since when was "killing" ever an option?
And who has the right to deny a person a peaceful ending to their life and stop the suffering permanently? Euthanasia is a very controversial topic and those in favour argue that it’s the patients choice what they do with their life in cases of terminal illnesses the death is inevitable so what is the point in prolonging the process? Others argue that Voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia and the termination of people deemed as undesirable. A strong ethical argument against the use of euthanasia is that, Lord Walton, chairman of a House of Lords committee looking into euthanasia says: “We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.” Since involuntary euthanasia is indistinguishable from murder it will be hard to identify and regulate murder cases as they can be passed off as involuntary euthanasia leading to the severity of murder as a crime being mediocre since people can escape the consequence using euthanasia. There is also concern that doctors are bestowed with too much power and... ... middle of paper ... ... used in other situations other than terminal illness is old age and being able to die with dignity before they are unable to go through with simple tasks such as going toilet alone, this is usually they don’t burden their families and retain pride.
There is nothing morally wrong with this idea. It is said our body is our own to cherish and worship but what happens when this ... ... middle of paper ... ...hanged and voluntary euthanasia is legalized it will be hard to keep it under control. Involuntary euthanasia will increase and soon doctors will terminate patients without permission to save money and free up beds for other patients.Euthanasia also gives a wrong message that its better to be dead than sick or disabled ,it also says that human beings have no value. Both sides have strong points backing them up.Deciding what is ethical is still a dilemma for some but from what i’ve always believed euthanasia to be ethical and this research just deepens my beliefs. In conclusion, when a patient chooses euthanasia to end its misery, everyone should respect his decision.Euthanasia is a temporary solution because no one can reduce the pain of losing someone but it is not the worst solution.Euthanasia is not the true solution to suffering.But its the best we have.