Sincerely this way for looking for a non suffering death is very inhumane. Euthanasia is a very non-ethical especially for the physicians who have to medicate this and watch this happen to their patients. How would you feel watching people die more and more quickly each day because of this drug? It must be heartbreaking especially if you studied to try to save people’s lives. We should try to fix a problem instead of creating new ones with euthanasia.
The biggest and most important oath that a doctor takes is “first, do not harm” so if the doctor administers this drug then they would be going against what they said and believed in as a doctor. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law stated: "Many physicians and others who oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia believe that the practices undermine the integrity of medicine and the patient-physician relation-ship. (Stevens)The reason most people become doctors are to help people and save lives, not take them. Many doctors that have been involved with euthanasia have been affected emotionally and psychologically. Dutch physician who performed euthanasia noted that: 'To kill someone is something far reaching and that is something that nags at your conscience.
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.
Brock argues for the use of euthanasia in his essay defending the implementation of euthanasia in medicine. One chief concern those against euthanasia have is that it will undermine the trust patients place in the hands of medical professionals. However, according to brock patients will not fear their doctors because they participate in euthanasia, but rather trust and appreciate their doctor even more (Brock pg.77). This is because those doctors know have a new tool to add to their repertoire. No healthcare provider would utilize physician assisted suicide or euthanasia without the consent of the patient and they all know this.
“The doctor’s duty is to kill the pain, not the patient” (“Top 6 Reasons Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Not Be Legal”). The health department is seeking an easy way out instead of finding ways to cure the patient. A patient should be given help. That is the reason they go to a doctor, to get help. They do not go to a doctor’s office expecting to be killed.
It is one person doing something that directly kills another. If euthanasia was legalized it would only lead to abuse and erosion of health care for the most vulnerable people. Some activists say euthanasia would only be at a patient’s request and no one would be forced into dying. Although physical force is highly unlikely, emotional and psychological pressure could overpower someone feeling depressed or dependent on people. Much like in Brave New World when John, “the savage” kills himself because could not accept the life-style that the “super-society” wanted to impose on him.
Euthanasia is a situation that a lot of people would not want to go through, or experience someone else go through, but sometimes people feel like it is the right thing to do. Many people agree that Euthanasia is appropriate because leaving a patient who is going to die anyways in a hospital room surviving on artificial life support or artificial feeding tubes is just taking up space. Pulling the plug gets it over with and it is just going to fast forward what is going to happen anyways. If people actually come to think of it though, Euthanasia is not a practice that should be legalized because it is cruel. Euthanasia is morally incorrect; it can be compared to the murder of another human.
The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong. Two, killing is incompatible with the professional responsibilities of the physician. And three, any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to detrimental social consequences (e.g., via a lessening of respect for human life)" (Mappes 57). Basically, a physician has a clear moral obligation to his/her patients, to cure and comfort. This "obligation" does not entail killing the patient.
For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively, imposing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual could be ended if the patient choose to do so. Although the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person to live a life of suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose. Euthanasia facilitates the choice making it the sympathetic choice and kind to that person 's
Imagine life where hospitals do not treat people to save their lives, but kill people for their illnesses because someone determines whether their lives are worth living or not. Society argues that it is the right choice, but when put in the situation directly, it is much harder. Once a life is gone, it is gone. It is not a little decision to make. Literally a life changing choice.