Common Arguments To Legalize Euthanasia In The United States

Legalise euthanasia will ultimately undermine doctor-patient relationship. Euthanasia is basically giving doctors the right to kill their patients. ‘It’s not up to the doctors whether life is happy or unhappy, worthwhile or not and

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 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.

According to Paul J. van der Wal et al. in ¨Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995¨, he addresses that assisted suicide should be legal and regulated. The authors’ purpose of writing this journal article is to make reliable estimates of euthanasia; to describe patients and physicians, and to evaluate changes between 1990 and 1995. Even though assisted suicide is a growing taboo, it is being practiced more each and every day. Paul J. van der Wal et al. chose to conduct two studies to answer their hypotheses.

I personally believe that euthanasia contradicts the Hippocratic Oath and the morals/values I’d expect healthcare personnel to have. How can you claim to want to help save or improve lives when you’re bailing out on them as soon as things get a bit tough, by some standard? When a doctor says,

I learned that the United States, the Netherlands, and Germany had different culture, values and ethical morals when it comes to the euthanasia and assistant suicide. I discovered that my beliefs are adjacent to the Netherlands. The United States only has six states that allows euthanasia and assistant suicide. The Netherlands legalized the use euthanasia and assistant suicide. Germany’s culture is against the euthanasia, but approves assistant suicide. It is also necessary to understand that euthanasia and PAS it should be use only when there is no other way to diminish the pain, or the terminal ill cannot prolong the life of a person. The person who requested should be mental stable.

The Netherlands legalized euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in 2001, though both were practiced prior to the legalization. No prosecution was sought as long as certain conditions were met. The laws in the Netherlands are much like those in Oregon. More than one request must be made and both patient and physician must agree that euthanasia is the only practical option. The law in the Netherlands allows that and advance euthanasia declaration may be established. An advance declaration is a legal document written by a competent person that consists of the person’s medical request in the event that they become mentally incompetent (Jochemsen, 2001). An advance declaration does not mean that the physician must perform euthanasia it provides a legal opening intentionally to end the life of someone who is mentally incapacitated and incapable of making the decision themselves.

For physicians, participating in euthanasia is against the Hippocratic Oath. This is the oath for anyone in the medical practice that states the conducts and moral practices of physicians. Physicians must respect and value all human lives. Not only will this practice violate the oath, but it also will break the respect and trust between the patient and the physician. There are actually two versions of the oath. The first is the original version. The second is the modern version. Both have the same meaning but different wording. One difference between the two is the content of euthanasia and abortion. The modernized version says “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life..”. Although this new version of the oath allows euthanasia, there is still the original version which does not allow physicians to assist any patient in death. Within the original Hippocratic Oath it states: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect... '. This

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in April of 2002. The country made the requirements for patients who decided they wanted to end their lives under the control of their

This essay will critically discuss slippery slope arguments with reference to the issues surrounding the legalization of euthanasia. Firstly, the foundations of a slippery slope argument will be discussed, along with the usual fallacious nature of this type of argument, also to be discussed, is if slippery slope arguments ever provide good reasons for accepting their conclusions. Secondly, euthanasia will be introduced and discussed, this will be done using an example of a slippery slope argument by John Keown from his book Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: and argument against legalization. From this example, the morality of euthanasia will be discussed as to whether slippery slope arguments show that euthanasia is immoral. Lastly, euthanasia will be discussed with reference utilitarianism, and if euthanasia would potentially be viewed as a good or moral option by utilitarian theory or if it would be viewed as immoral.

Following the argument of doctor’s right. Also the doctors should have a say when it comes to the request of the patient. It is said when the doctors have compassion for their patient due to their suffering, it plays a role in their decision. They see their patient laying there incurable and suffering from the unbearable pain, they believe they should be allowed to suggest euthanasia if the patient and family agree. But doctors should never say anything about euthanasia unless they are a terminally ill patient with unbearable pain. “Since 1997, the states [Oregon] has allowed for prescription to be given for a lethal dose of drugs when two doctors agree that a mentally competent patient has less than six months to live.” (Coles, 2009, p.2) Doctors have been performing euthanasia for many years already without technically knowing it. There are many different religions and beliefs when it comes to treatment and prolonging life. Patients, whose religions do not believe in medical treatment, end up using the practice of euthanasia because they are taking away that

Arguments that are in favor of active euthanasia by physicians as stated by, Gregory Weiss, author of The Sociology of Health, Healing, and Illness are, “that death should be peaceful and comfortable, people have the right to self- determination, laws could require safeguards, suicide already exist, and majority of American are in favor. Arguments that oppose euthanasia by physician are, “physician should sustain life, patients are depressed and thinking irrationally, interferes with good physician- patient relationship, making suicide acceptable, hospitals can help patients deal with pain and have palliative care (Weiss). Physician’s arguments such as Dr. Jack Kevorkian can be compared and relative to the arguments in favor of active euthanasia.

A physician is supposed to be a healer and assist in promoting life or in “natural” death. It goes against all values to be the physician in an assisted suicide death. There are claims that with all the advances made in medicine in today’s world no one should be suffering through any such pains to the point of wanting to die. Arguments regarding euthanasia often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient, in some jurisdictions it is seen as being a criminal form of homicide. Some of the arguments are also based on religious beliefs. Many Christians believe that taking a life, for any reason, is interfering with God's plan and is comparable to murder. Although there are those who also think that God gave man the knowledge to make the drugs so they are “God given” and should be used to end pain and

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

In cases where an individual's quality of life is irreparably diminished by terminal illness, one may seek to end their life with the help of a doctor. This has been a solution for patient suffering in neighboring countries, but there are ethical and legal issues that make it an impractical solution for American healthcare. Considering the results of negative potential of euthanasia practices exposes its flaws, and sheds light on better alternatives. Therefore active euthanasia, not to be confused with physician assisted suicide, should not be legalized in the United States.