According to the Oxford dictionary, euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of putting an end to a patient’s life for the purpose of ending the patients suffering. But can it ever be right to kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering? To kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering, is considered homicide. Over the past years euthanasia has been defeated and become illegal in every country besides Netherland and Belgium. I am afraid that if euthanasia could have been legalised in those two countries, it’s a matter of time; the whole world would approval and soon follows the Dutch’s example of ‘good and easy death.’ Once legalised, euthanasia will become a means of health care containment, will become involuntary and would not only apply for the terminally ill,

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

It is the responsibility of those in healthcare to promote wellness, health and quality of live. Yet from early on the concept of promoting life has existed. The Hippocratic oaths states that, “I will not give poison to anybody when asked to do so.” This is a clear statement against euthanasia. The Hippocratic oath interestingly, also does not allow for the use of abortive agents, showing the concern for the sanctity of life. It does also go on to say that I will not put the knife to any patient, which could be interpreted as assisted suicide or pagan practice of cutting and blood letting. As a surgeon today I would take a more liberal stance on this later statement of this part of the oath which is often omitted from modern reading of the oath, as we now are able to cure disease by the use of the knife. Some would also argue the use of poison to treat, such as chemotherapeutic agents which are also acceptable. Pushing this to the extreme, some may say that much of this oath is no longer applicable and euthanasia also falls under a new area of enlightenment. However, most Doctors to believe that it is their job to relieve pain and suffering and cure when possible and this can be obtained without the use of euthanasia. Hospice care is readily available. Patient can establish living wills in order to make their decision known. Patients have a right to refuse treatment and this include, nutrition and hydration. Refusal of these will will result in datth in less than one week. Patient can be kep comfortable without promoting active death and

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

Evidence: In the Netherlands, physician-assisted suicide was made legal, nationwide, 1981. In the following 20 years, Dutch policy went from PAS in cases of unbearable terminal illness, to legalized practices of extended euthanasia. According to Hendin in the Duquesne Law Review, once a form of “killing” was introduced and allowed in the legal, moral, and medical realms, it was impossible to prevent more lenient policy on assistance in death (Hendin 1996). This rapid evolution in policy leads to further abuses of the assistance in death, including involuntary euthanasia, which go largely unpunished, argued against, or investigated.

This article begins by referencing an incident of a 74-year-old woman in the Netherlands whom requested euthanasia for her chronic dementia. The author (Lane) explains how euthanasia is so commonplace in the Netherlands and how they use subjective criteria such as “"unbearable suffering," "due care" and, fuzziest of all, especially in cases of dementia or mental illness, a ‘voluntary, well-considered request’”. The author goes on to explain how the current euthanasia laws are problematic and “In some cases, physicians knowingly pushed the limits of [the] law”. The author goes on to conclude that if euthanasia were to be expanded beyond what it is now, the impaired patient’s ability to consent would become doubtful or null. The legislation in

The Hippocratic Oath states, “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Rockett). For centuries, physicians have helped patients to die but that was to endure the lengthy process that leads to their death. A physician pledges that he or she will follow the right path that guides them to practice proper uses of medicine. Taking the vital oath helps civil societies flourish. Some people may be against assisted suicide because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Many claim it is a painless, merciful escape, however there are consequences far from being pain free.

Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia in the United States breaches the basic principles medical doctors practice by violating the Hippocratic Oath, damaging the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient, and creating opportunities for abuse. Euthanasia’s legalization allowing physicians to perform assisted suicide defy fundamental elements a physician values. Most primitively, a doctor assisting a patient in her or her death through euthanasia violates an oath taken by all physicians before entering the medical field. This oath is known as the Hippocratic Oath and is taken to guide physicians to make ethical and caring decisions for their patients. John Safranek writes about the Oath’s essentials in his article, “Autonomy and Assisted Suicide: the Execution of Freedom.” In it, he says, “The Hippocratic Oath, professed by doctors through the

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. . . . In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art” (Kass 301). Hippocrates, known by many as the “Father of Medicine,” included the above statement in his famous Hippocratic Oath. Many doctors today swear this oath, but why would they need to? In many countries in the world today such as the Netherlands, doctors practice euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide. What constitutes euthanasia? What identifies physician-assisted suicide? What distinguishes the two of them? Michele M. Mathes —Ethics Education Coordinator for the

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient who is suffering from an incurable and very painful disease. Also, if the patient is in a permanent coma. Within the United States of America and in most countries euthanasia is illegal to be practiced. The origin of the word euthanasia came from the early 17th century within the Greek culture. In Greek, the word euthanasia translates to ευθανασία. (“Google.” Google. Translator. Web. June 19, 2016.) In a way, this translates to easy death.

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should

Euthanasia is one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this