Also I disagree with the legal system when criminal charges are enforced upon a person who is assisting another person to die peacefully. I think that people's judgement of euthanasia is negative, as death is regarded as a bad thing. However voluntary euthanasia is positive as it gives the patient personal choice and may shorten the grief of the patient's loved ones if they know that the patient died a peaceful death. Although some people believe that euthanasia devalues life, I do not agree because I feel that it gives the patient an opportunity to end his or her life by celebrating their life in the company of loved ones. To conclude, I think that society's view on euthanasia needs to be more open, and hopefully people will realise that it is a positive thing, and not just a means of a quick death.
The taking of ones life can be argued from a populistic view as well. It makes little sense to preserve life in an over populated world. True, one less person here on there will not make a large dent. Yet if everyone who attempts or had attempted suicide were not stopped, the impact would be noticed. Another popular argument for stoppers, people who want to prevent suicide, is that nothing can be bad enough.
Besides, some doctors might then choose the shortest way out, helping people die instead of helping them recover. Although some of what opponents say makes sense, they don't see euthanasia from the eyes of a patient and they undermine the rights of every person. A terminally ill person wants to end their life in a dignified manner. It would be cruel and inhumane to force a person to stay alive when they want to avoid excruciating pain. Not let people ask for euthanasia goes against freedom.
Although the families aren’t happy about losing them, but are relieved to know that nothing else can hurt them. As one family feels sorry for the other family, there could be the family that doesn’t care what happens but wants everyone to suffer the way they are suffering about the tragic death of one family member. The death penalty is going against human rights. A right to live their life without having the state take their life away. “The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights.
It is hard to endure the pains and fight back to live. However, most people try to hold until the last moments. Euthanasia is nothing less than forcefully ending ones life. Euthanasia would just kill us in one second without second thoughts. If euthanasia became legalized then it would ruin the future by letting the all ill patients die without letting them to say goodbye to their family or our close people.
Leaving their loved ones will be left alone and blame them selves of what happen to the patients. But opponents are most incorrect in this argument because being alone and not suffering is the solution of death. however, mercy from God will become the first thing the patients will
I have known many adolescents who have thought about suicide. People’s reasons for suicide just cannot be legit in most cases. Some reasons are: “my girlfriend broke up with me” or “people make fun of me” or how about “I don’t have any friends?” Whatever the reason for the thought of suicide, there isn’t a valid one, unless we are dealing in euthanasia. People usually think suicide is the best and only solution to an insignificant problem. They do not think about the consequences or the people they may hurt in the process.
It is my belief that assisted suicide and euthanasia (both passive and active) is morally ok. My main reason for thinking so stems from the idea that people should be allowed to make choices about their own life when it doesn’t affect anyone else. To me, dying is a very personal, one-sided ordeal that doesn’t involve other people as much as they think it does. People like to make themselves apart of other people’s deaths and to me that seems very selfish. Sure you have to deal with losing this person, but people become so focused on what they are losing and completely ignore the fact that the person dying is dealing with what is considered the biggest mystery on Earth. When someone decides that their life is no longer worth living, we shouldn’t come at them with guilt and anger.
Second, Gibson defends his conclusion by arguing that the death penalty acts as an ultimate retribution. The article, “The Case Against the Death Penalty” on the other hand argues that many people who have lost a loved feel as if they have to do everything that is in their hands to execute the murderer; yet this sentiment is not universal. Further more, someone who is sentenced to death row, may not even want anything to do with the murderer of their loved one. In the United States, many who have survived the murder of a loved one have joined Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation or Murder Victims Families for Human Rights (The Case Against the Death Penalty). Instead of holding anger, as well as resentment toward their loved one’s murderer, they decide to join these groups that help them reach the peace that was taking away from them when their loved one was murdered.
The argument to the above is that the death penalty does not bring back any victim to life, therefore, unnecessary. Just because someone has taken a life, it doesn’t mean that the convict’s life should also be taken. Is it fair to take a bad situation and make it worse? The death penalty will never sweep away the emotions and feelings of grief that the relatives and friends feel. Murdering the convicted murder would only cause more grief for his family, therefore, over time, grieving would become commonplace.