Euthanasi Pressing The Issue Of Its Legalization

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.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.

Today, the fact that euthanasia is morality or immorality permissible is a very controversial issue debated and discussed by doctors and philosophers. This point generated a controversial debate. The discussion takes into account the ethics of medical

unacceptable in legal terms. However, the issue is not so clear in moral terms among the

One of the biggest and most controversial topics throughout society today is the act of euthanasia in humans. In the medical field, euthanasia is commonly known as assisted suicide that is essentially for terminally ill patients only. When thinking about euthanasia, Americans tend to relate it towards the rights for animals, but in this specific example I will focus on the controversial topic of legalization on behalf of people who are professionally diagnosed with a life-threatening diseases. This will not include minorities under the age of eighteen or the elderly over the age of sixty. Thus when looking at the data in today’s society, euthanasia is clearly defined as taking action of ending a person’s

Euthanasia is an arising moral contemporary issue. A brief definition of euthanasia would be the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies" (Netherlands State Commission on Euthanasia). This may look like an only solution to many people whose lives are seemingly wasting away, or have been fully spent. Whether we should let such people die is an argument that is yet to mature. As sincere as this plea may sound, there are certain things to consider should euthanasia be legalized and things run out of hand. Hence this paper will look at the dangers of legalizing voluntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

Before analysing the link between ethical theories and euthanasia, euthanasia and the current legal stance must first be defined and evaluated. As stated by Christian Nordqvist. (2010), euthanasia can be defined as “a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering”. Society most widely views euthanasia as the “intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from another person”.

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.

It is a shared understanding that human life must be valued under any circumstance, and it should not be terminated for whatever reasons unless it is a natural occurrence. The value and respect for human life were behind the debate against death row in many states and countries around the world. In addition, religion places high value in human life, basing on the claim that it is a sin to end one’s life. However, there have been instances where ending the life of another person is the best alternative, especially in medical cases. The idea that brought the emergence of euthanasia is a Greek word that means “good death.” The purpose of good death is to assist a patient who will eventually die regardless of the treatment provided. In most cases, such patients experience pain and suffering as a result of them being alive, hence, the only alternative would be to assist them to die. Many scholars support this notion basing on the fact that it could be the best alternative, while others maintain the value of human life and reject the concept entirely. An analysis of both arguments will present a clear understanding of euthanasia and its role in contemporary healthcare.

Long before medicinal advances, more dramatic measures were taken to help those who lived with incurable diseases, with the excruciating pain that accompanied those diseases, and with the inability to attain any value of life due to disease or uncontrollable pain. Now, as one of the most controversial topics, study and research on euthanasia is becoming more widespread in the medical world. Though some believe euthanasia is immoral or unjust, and those who are against it seek to stigmatize it; no definitive line can be drawn as to whether euthanasia is morally “good” or “bad” or “right” or “wrong.” In other words, the topic of euthanasia is not a simplistic one, but rather one which requires great consideration, contemplation, and evaluation. If the presumption, or belief, that universal morals do exist prima facie, then one can conclude that the practice of euthanasia, no matter what form, is indeed, morally upstanding. In the case of euthanasia, universal morals consist of, but are not limited to, the following: human dignity, an individual’s right to self-determination, accepting a duty of care (for self and others, which can fall under having compassion as well), and respect for the autonomy of others. Thus, it is permissible to actively kill a patient with or in the absence of their consent under specific circumstances, only after all universal morals have been considered, assuming that universal morals exist.

However, I support euthanasia and, with the help of this paper, to argue in favor of it. Euthanasia is “a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life so as to relieve intractable suffering.” It is necessary to note that there are several types of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is already widespread in hospitals and is nothing but the impossibility to cure a person and attempts to