In this case the immediate cause of death of a patient is not their disease but something done to the patient to cause his or her demise. My goal in this paper is to argue against active euthanasia since I see it follows the same principle as homicide. Active euthanasia Death is not a choice that lies on anyone’s decision. The doctor’s role is to safeguard the patient’s life and not to take it away. Health practitioners take an oath to safeguard life at all cost, this implies that a doctor should not kill at any given moment.
Life is a blessing; therefore, people should cherish and preserve it as much as possible. Patients in critical situations such as dealing with a terminal illness should be able to decide whether they want to end their lives or to have a physician do it for them. An arguable debate is whether euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal in many parts of the world. The question has grown and raised concerns: should physician and medical experts end the life of a patient who wills it? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal in the United States and other areas of the world because patients should not have to live life with an unbearable pain and suffer the whole time through it.
Which he argues it’s a line that never should be crossed because it could lead to the patients being wrongfully misleaded. Seeing this is understandable that going ahead with Active Euthanasia and PAS could lead to other consequences. But it should never get to the point where a patient is pressured or forced against they’re autonomy. In conclusion, Euthanasia is “good death” and should result in that. Having a patient like Diane’s death should end in a non suffering way.
In this paper I have argued that: Health professionals should aim to improve health and suffering and not kill because it becomes overbearing, If hospitals had good palliative care then euthanasia wouldn’t be necessary, A patient who is in the process of dying isn’t in the right state of mind to make a decision such as ending their life, If euthanasia becomes legal, it doesn’t allow research to find cures for chronic illnesses, Euthanasia gives too much power to the doctors, Euthanasia destroys societal respect for life, and Giving the doctors this much power essentially leads to a variation of murder. Therefore, it is morally wrong for someone to kill a person; even it is on medical terms.
It affirms life and regards death as a normal process, neither hastening nor postponing death, but providing relief from suffering” (“Anti-euthanasia”). With this information, the advocates should focus more on giving patients the correct and sufficient medical care that they need rather than finding a way to end lives from suffering. Euthanasia should not be legalized because the effects will cause much turmoil on both religious and moral standards, and the government should not be given control over the deaths of their citizens, especially when there are different steps that can be taken to prevent this hastened life-ending process. Euthanasia is not solely about a person’s ‘right to die’, but the consequences, evidence, and history described to show how grim euthanasia has and will become.
People knowing that their health will not improve and will arrive at their death should be given the right to an assisted suicide. Harmful or attempted suicides that result in severe damage can also be prevented by letting those with physical suffering end their life by the help of a physician. Even though assisted suicide is illegal in most states, it is generally ethical. Assisted suicide needs to only be administered and considered moral for someone who has a terminal diagnosis and wishes to die gracefully in order to relieve their pain. Suicide is not normally something that should be deemed acceptable, but since suicide with assistance can help the terminally ill, it needs to be seen as ethical for the sake of the less fortunate with a deadly
When someone is in pain and has decided enough is enough, they have the right to make that stop. Assisted suicide and euthanasia has been blown out of proportion and demonized by people who are not in a situation dire enough to have to consider it. If someone wants to fight until the very end let them, but that does not mean the people who no longer wishes to fight has to live. Morally speaking, helping someone end their own life is permissible, and should be legalized across the
It would surely be better to legalize and regulate the treatment known as “euthanasia” and minimize the factor of abusing it rather than not having any rules at all. Patients may be at less of a risk if there were specific rules to be followed when the treatment of euthanasia is requested. A patient shouldn’t have to wait and suffer until their bodies can take no more. A patient is the possessor of his or her own life. We humans can do whatever we want with our possessions.
Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense.
It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others.