Pro Euthanasia

Euthanasia in Greek literally means a “good death”, however, it is still considered to be one of the most controversial issues all around the world. Euthanasia is defined as the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve that person’s pain and suffering. Euthanasia is a fundamental right; everyone has the right to control their body and the right to a good death. Active euthanasia is not much different from assisted-suicide and is more practical in certain situations. One should not have to endure pain and suffering for the rest of their lives when there is a way to end it. Illegalised euthanasia leads to patients seeking other ways to obtain release from their pain. Dying through euthanasia gives patients a sense of dignity

Many argue that active euthanasia is considered to be murder because a patient is given a lethal drug end their life, even though it is voluntary. So, is there any difference between active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide? Firstly, they key point that makes physician-assisted suicide legal is that the patient takes the drug on their own, whereas in active euthanasia the physician usually injects the drug themselves. Considering this, giving and prescribing are not much different from one another when it is voluntary. Also, some patients lose all bodily functions and are unable to participate in physician-assisted suicide and so their only option is active euthanasia. As a consequence, I see no difference between them because the patient and the doctor act together to end the life of the patient; they both play a major role. Secondly, others will argue that active euthanasia goes against the Hippocratic oath. However, the Hippocratic oath has been changed numerous times in the past. It used to state that women were not allowed to study medicine and that doctors could not break/cut the skin, evidently those were changed. The controversial part is that the oath states that doctors should “do no harm”. In

When a physician denies a patient of their right to die when they are in immeasurable pain, it is forcing them to live a life without their dignity. When one is terminally ill and has to spend the rest of their days in bed or hospital room their quality of life deteriorates. Being forced to go through pain and suffering, they lose the a sense of self; when they were able to do things that now their illness holds them back from doing. An example of this would be Tony Nicklinson, who suffered from an incurable disease called ‘Locked-in’ syndrome for seven years. Patients with this illness lose all motor functions but are aware of surrounding and have cognitive abilities. He decided to take the matters into his hands and asked the British court, using a computer since he is unable to speak, to a let physician administer a lethal drug because he himself is unable to do it, without the fear of anyone being prosecuted in the process. His request was denied so he decided to starve himself until he died which took a week. Thus, without the option of active euthanasia, some patients quality of life continues to worsen and are forced to die without dignity. Moreover, there is a virtue of honour in asking for euthanasia and administering it. Honour is respecting one another as human beings. To illustrate, when one asks for euthanasia, the patient and the physician feel honour for each other, because the patient is asking