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.
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
These procedures might eventually seem as natural as any other treatment an individual would receive. Often times people do not get to choose how they die, but on the singular occasions in which they do, there should be an option for a merciful death. Though it may be against their oath, doctors should be able to assist patients that have life clinging to them like a disease itself. Essentially, the government has forced those with terminal illnesses to waste away when they would much prefer death. The question the officials in Washington D.C. need to ask themselves is, “Are we allowing doctors to help these patients, or are we cruelly delaying death?”
Everyone, at some point in their life, will grapple with the grievous reality of a loved one dying. Doctors and medical practitioners will do all they can to comfort and help those who are terminally ill, but their efforts will only postpone the inevitable. Modern medical advances have facilitated the use of life-support machines and intubation, but these advances have also facilitated the controversial introduction of euthanasia and physician-assisted dying. A number of pro-choice advocates have recently suggested that euthanasia is the gentlest, easiest, and quickest way to end one 's life with dignity. By focusing on these appealing prospects, however, many people do not adequately take into account what I consider to be important constituents
Because passive euthanasia is accepted by the American Medical Association in cases where it is clear the patient has no reasonable hope of living without the aid of a machine, passive euthanasia is not as controversial as active euthanasia. This paper will focus on the controversial morality issues regarding active voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the ending of a persons life by lethal injection with or without the patients consent. Unless oth... ... middle of paper ... ... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
In most cases, passive euthanasia is permitted but whether or not active euthanasia should be allowed creates a major controversy. (Rachel,452) The question, should a person be allowed to end their life through active euthanasia when they are terminally ill and the pain of dying is unbearable, seems easy enough to answer. Many sound arguments and well presented cases refuting euthanasia, however, have proved it to be ethically, morally, and legally wrong. The pro-euthanasia case is based on two main claims. Some argue that "patients whose illnesses cause them unbearable suffering should be permitted to end their distress by having a physician perform euthanasia"(Singer and Seigler p.381), while others on the same side argue that the decision to turn toward euthanasia is one's own; that "the well-recognized right of patients to control their medical treatment includes the right to request and receive euthanasia" (Singer and Seigler,381).
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death. “The most good is done by allowing people to carry out their own affairs with as little intrusion by government as possible” (Gittelman 372). Dying is a part of life and since it is your body you should have complete and full control over it. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be available for patients because they have the right to choses there “final exit”(Manning 26). Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27).
The reality of the situation is that they will not get better and just spend their days in pain until they die. By legalizing euthanasia, it gives the people an alternative when they are sick of the suffering. Medical Expenses People with terminal illness most of the time do not have enough m... ... middle of paper ... ...essure them into it, and it violates the Hippocratic Oath. On the other side, the main reasons for the legalization are that it is fast and painless which allows a simple death, it relieves the pain that these people would have to face for the rest of their lives, and because the medical expenses are a burden to them as well as their families after they have passed away naturally. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about euthanasia/assisted suicide, which can be seen with only three states making it legal in the U.S but many other countries legalizing it.
Myself, along with many other United States citizens believe that euthanasia should be legalized within the United States for reasons concerning medical advances, the severity of pain a person is in once diagnosed with a terminal illness, and the basic fact that a person’s life is their own life and no one else’s. Defenders in personal liberties argue that all people are morally entitled to end their lives when we feel it to be necessary (Johansen, 2000). Jay Johansen states in his article “Euthanasia: A Case of Individual Liberty?”, “Rather than endure great pain and suffering for the remainder of their lives, ill patients should have the ethical choice to choose to end their [suffering]” (Johansen, 2000). Samia Hurst in her article “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” affirms, “Some patients may request euthanasia to avoid the weakness and loss of mental failures that some diseases cause, and many people feel that the wisher shou... ... middle of paper ... ...ncluding the right to participate in assisted suicide. There are many issues concerning euthanasia, however, the three main issues that I feel are important when discussing the legalization of euthanasia are because of medical advances, the severity of pain a person is in once diagnosed with a terminal illness, and the basic fact that a person’s life is their own life and no one else’s.
A euthanasia advocate, Dr. Philip Nitschke, argues in his CNN news article “Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there,” that society sees children and people with Alzheimer 's as those who cannot make decisions by themselves. He also strongly supports the statement of "a peaceful death is everybody 's right" in Belgium. However, simply avoiding unknowable prediction of suffering by ending lives that may have a fruitful future does not solve the problem. Children and disabled will consider themselves as burdens of their families and likely to end their lives for the family to be better off. Their impulsive decisions may cause irretrievable consequences.