The Pros And Cons Of Assisted Suicide

By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.

It has the minds of society wondering if death solves some of the most extreme medical problems. If a patient finds himself or herself terminally ill and in excruciating pain, they should have the option to partake in assisted suicide to end their misery. Some insights support Euthanasia and some reject the concept. This issue is important to society because people want the right to end their lives when facing terminal, or life threatening, illnesses. In my opinion, certain forms of euthanasia should be considered legal.

The majority of the time a physician will administer a drug to the person and the person will quickly pass away. Some people say that euthanasia is not ethical and that it should be illegal while other people say that euthanasia is ethical and should be legal since it relieves human suffering. Euthanasia Should Be Legal Euthanasia is considered to be a solution to suffering people when diseases and terminal conditions effect their daily functioning. Although assisted suicide is only legal in three states, some people believe that we should allow people with terminal illnesses the right to die in every state (Newton, 2013). The main reason people find that euthanasia is a good idea is because it allows people a simple death.

There are many different reasons why people would want to euthanize someone, but here are just a few of them. The reasons are – to put themselves out of the misery of their terminal illness, as they only see physical and emotional pain in their future because some rules are better than none, human beings have the right to die how and when they want to because sometimes a life is just not worth living anymore and euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. One acting on their own violation, with their right mind should be able to make a decision on how they live and die without a government or religious group interfere. Euthanasia should be

There are pro’s and con’s to idea of being assisted medically with suicide. On one hand it’s not our place to take away a life and it’s completely contrary to what a physician is suppose to do. Aren’t doctors supposed to keep their patients alive and provide care for their patients? How is this any different from legalized murder? On the other side of things this is seen as a mercy killing for those whom are suffering.

Len Doyal argues how euthanasia can be legal because physicians choose not to help their patients, but they can take their lives and experiment with it (65). When their decisions to try to benefit the patient’s life in the future go wrong, they only made them hurt more instead of helping them hurt less. Some say it is a crime, others say they are doing right. Doctors have a duty to help patients out as much as they can. People have the right to die and if they make the final decision that they do want to die, doctors should understand the patients decision and assist the needs and wants, concluding that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should become legal in various areas of the world.

The Bill of Rights state in the eighth amendment, “ nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”, so would it be considered cruel inflicted punishment to deny a person with a terminal illness and a few agonizing months to live the right to end their suffering sooner? A health care professional takes an oath to preserve life and wellness so assisting a person with suicide would jeopardize their ethical and moral duty to their profession. Also, take into consideration if it is appropriate that assisted suicide holds up the health professional ethical principles of beneficence, and autonomy for the patient. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Humans can not choose they way they were bought into this world, so shouldn’t the way you exit be your decision not the government; especially when you are dying of a terminal illness slowly?

You can inject the person so they can die without sorrow and pain, and take the risk of escaping the penalties. Or you can stand by the law and let him die naturally while he is pain and agony. Dr Derrick Summers believes that people should be able to leave this world without having to fight a battle that they know they are going to lose, even if it is against the law. He thinks that the person has a right to be injected if they are in a serious condition which they know that the patient is not going to make it. It isn’t just the law why people don’t inject people it is also that it is religiously wrong.

Euthanasia as Mercy or Murder "In keeping with the root definition of 'euthanasia'- literally [meaning] 'good death'- [supporters] of euthanasia insist they are talking about helping terminally ill patients in insufferable pain die a dignified death- at the patient's request. But this bears no resemblance to the true picture of the actual practice of euthanasia in the United States" (Lyons np). Passive euthanasia is death by nonintervention, meaning a health care worker can discontinue providing life-sustaining treatment to the patient, thus allowing him to die more quickly. "In all actuality, [passive] euthanasia often involves withholding food and water from a patient whose death is caused by starvation or dehydration rather than the patient's underlying disease" (Lyons np). In active euthanasia, a physician or family member takes the life of a patient by means of lethal injection, before he or she dies of a terminal illness or injury.

Therefore, by not killing the patient, the physician and caregivers are causing suffering to that patient. In certain circumstance I would agree that the intention of the killing, for being to relieve suffering, absolves the physician or caregivers of guilt normally associated with the act of killing. ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing people to be killed instead of aiming to heal. Personal judgements regarding others choice to die of natural causes or to be euthanized should be reserved, especially if the patient is choosing to no longer be a burden on their loved ones because this too is a valid reason in some circumstance. We all die in an innumerable amount of ways and our autonomous decision to choose Active Euthanasia or PAS should be respected as should our choice to refuse euthanasia.