“Euthanasia” As to whether euthanasia should be legalized or not, has been one of the most controversial topics in the United States of America and throughout the world. Euthanasia in simple terms can be referred to as an easy, painless, intentional killing of an individual in an effort to eliminate that individual’s suffering as a result of terminal illness. It is an accepted practice in very few countries around the world and only in certain states of the United States of America and should not be legalized for many reasons. The most paramount reason why euthanasia should not be legalized is that it can cause premature death. Although many say it should be reserved as a last resort, euthanasia can be chosen by a patient due to depression. Most of the time, depression goes hand in hand with suicide, of which euthanasia is a type. Most suicidal people are not ready to die and with assistance from a psychologist can overcome the depression they suffer. Imagine a patient who is terminally ill, with no friends, and waiting to die. He feels like he is a burden and has no purpose so, instead of living life to the fullest before he dies, he opts for euthanasia to end his suffering. Even though the euthanasia cut short his misery, he missed out an …show more content…
Many lives, many opportunities, and many dreams are at stake if it should be legalized. Euthanasia should not even be the last resort for any human being. We all deserve a right to live no matter the predicament we find ourselves in or the ailments that afflict us. Be it a severe disability or a terminal illness like AIDS, everyone should be allowed to live their life to the fullest. What would have happened if the greatest mind of our time, Professor Steven Hawking was euthanized because of his disability? The world would have been at a great loss. Likewise, what would happen if it was legal to kill off other Steven Hawkings out
The term Euthanasia is derived from the Greek roots, taking the words ‘eu’, meaning good or well, and ‘thanatos’, meaning death, to create the term “good death ”. (Definition of Euthanasia . 2011) The term ‘Euthanasia’ is not defined specifically within Australian Legislation, however the generalised definition states that Euthanasia is intentionally taking another person’s life by the means of a direct action or depriving a person of the medical care needed to preserve life. (Euthanasia: What Does It Really Mean? Date Unknown). Linda Jackson (2005) continues to add that Euthanasia can then be further separated into four specified categories: Passive voluntary euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, passive involuntary euthanasia and active involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia will be the specified area that will be focused on within this assignment.
Euthanasia is a difficult ideal to understand, to lack the ability to place a value on someone’s life and to understand someone’s suffering at the sometime. Being pulled by both your heart and your soul at the same time.
According to Longman dictionary euthanasia means “the deliberate killing of a person who is very ill ‘(terminal illness)’ and going to die, in order to stop them suffering.” There are two different types of euthanasia; active and passive. Euthanasia is legalized in some parts of the world like Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Oregon, Montana and Washington. Euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada because it is not lawful, ethical, and violates Canada’s respect for every religion.
Death is something almost everyone fears, but the people that aren’t afraid are the ones suffering from terminal disease and other life-threatening illness. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are very serious topics in the medical community, as supporters to legalization argue that it’s the right of the person to live or die, while on the other side opponents argue legalizing it me1ans that doctors will have the ability to kill patients and that the government approves it. Euthanasia is legal in multiple countries including Netherlands, Switzerland, and Canada. Physician assisted suicide is legal in a lot of countries including; Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. Euthanasia is widely conversed in the world and has been since it was first
Terminally ill patients should have the legal option of physician-assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients deserve the right to control their own death. Legalizing assisted suicide would relive families of the burdens of caring for a terminally ill relative. Doctors should not be prosecuted for assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill patient. We as a society must protect life, but we must also recognize the right to a humane death. When a person is near death, in unbearable pain, they have the right to ask a physician to assist in ending their lives.
In conclusion, euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalized world wide. To end suffering, to keep one’s autonomy and their desire to perform daily actions, and to prevent the fear of burdening loved ones are among many reasons people resort to euthanasia or assisted suicide. A doctor is morally obligated to relieve the pain and suffering of a patient, and no one should be forced to suffer for any length of time. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are intimate procedures that only concern the involved parties. People have a right to choose how their life is lived, so they should have the same right to choose how to end their life.
The issues in the euthanasia debate usually revolve around patients who are terminally ill and/or suffering intractable pain. The patient must fully think about every aspect of what euthanasia would involve. I think that once a patient is seeking to end his or her life due to illness; they must have a will in place and also note the reason why they want to end their life. Euthanasia does raises lots of worrying ethical dilemmas like in what condition euthanasia can be justify, is there any ethical difference among killing someone and letting them die, is there any right to end the life of an individual who is suffering from serious
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
Some people might think that it’s immoral to kill someone without natural cause. The goal for Euthanasia is to provide a person a way to relieve extreme pain or when a person life is just going downhill for them. This also help’s free up medical funds to help other people. In other cases it could be a freedom of choice if the patients wants to end their life without going through anymore suffering. A lot of argument is over if Euthanasia devalues life or if it is against human moral to take another life. While a person decisions does play a role in this, most of the time it will be a physician choice to see if the patient should live or
Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person? The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question “no,” unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering? Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering? Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement concerning the morality of euthanasia. This paper will discuss the particular morality of the passive and active forms of involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary euthanasia. I believe that voluntary passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, while all other forms of euthanasia are ultimately immoral.
Society’s major arguments in favor of euthanasia believe that first, human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. Secondly, they believe that it is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress. Thirdly, euthanasia should be allowed when it is in the best interests of all involved and does not violate anyone's rights. Finally, if death is not a terrible thing, then making it come sooner isn't a bad thing (life related issues). Also, they believe that allowing the act of ending someone’s life helps shorten the grief and suffering of the patient’s loved ones.
Euthanasia is very controversial topic in the world today. Euthanasia, by definition, is the act of killing someone painlessly ,especially someone suffering from an incurable illness. Many people find euthanasia morally wrong, but others find people have control over thier own bodies and have a right to die. A solution to this problem is to have the patient consent to euthansia and have legal documentation of the consent.
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?
We live an ever-changing society that should not view Euthanasia as an unethical action, but as a way of help for suffering patients. Everyday their are thousands of hard working individuals that are diagnosed with a terminal illness and are now faced with decisions that must both be in the best interest for them and their families. This is neither an easy choice nor one that should be made without serious thought, but it should not be denied or penalized by society or government. It is a choice that must be made only by the patient in question with the input and understanding of their families. Many members of our society have worked very hard throughout their lives and if it is their desire to elect Euthanasia to spare them of the pain and the financial burden that a fatal illness would leave behind, then so be it.
Each form of euthanasia also has a set of arguments that accompany them. Some of the common pro euthanasia arguments are the right choice. The patient should be able to be given the option to make the decision to die and to do with dignity. The quality of life argument is another. This is when only the patient knows what it is like to have persistent unstoppable suffering, and pain. Even with pain relievers it is not enough. With the pro arguments comes the cons. The most common cons are guilty, slippery slope to murder, competence, and what the doctor’s role is in all of