Euthanasia Controversy In The Legal System: A Case Study

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 and physician-assisted suicide are two similar topics which are constantly countered with extremely weak statements, such as “the argument that if we respect the liberty of some individuals to choose assisted death we will thereby expose the ill and frail to an increased risk of abuse or exploitation” (Schafer, “the case for legalization”), which is commonly known as the “slippery slope” debate. However, several countries and select states in the United States who have legalized euthanasia have not shown any signs of “slippery slopes”. In fact, these areas have actually demonstrated that:

Out of the 196 countries in the world, only nine countries have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide,” a quote brought up by Storypick. (). Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics currently, but what can euthanasia offer patients and people all around the United States? People have different opinions and facts about euthanasia; so what are the pros and cons? In the end, euthanasia should be legalized because people will face pain mental and physical, people’s opinions should not be deterred as well with a death that will contain dignity, despite the moral thoughts it goes against. 10.2

People who die of a prolonged illness or had a predictable steady decline due to a condition like heart disease, diabetes, or Alzheimer’s disease account for ninety percent of deaths each year (Girsh 45). Most of the people who died suffered greatly because of their disease. However, if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide was legal, the suffering could have been severely lessened. People who oppose both options have many reasons why euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should not be legal. The Hippocratic Oath, the fear they could be abused by the poor, Nazi-styled teachings might return, or people may feel coerced, and the right to die is not an actual right are a few examples of what the people who oppose euthanasia or physician-assisted

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.

Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people need to be in charge of their lives, statements from critics, and the serious evaluation process when chosen. Euthanasia can reserve all rights towards an individual’s choice towards death or not, because it is the person who has to endure and agonize through the incurable illness. An individual’s perspective on a situation is through their eyes and no one else, that is why euthanasia produces the choice of being alive or

Because the individual circumstances regarding the judgment of patients’ conditions and the implementation of assisted suicide can vary quite profoundly, a policy solution to the regulation of these practices must be flexible and capable of reacting appropriately and adjustably in the assessment of each individual case. The way the Dutch have handled the variance of these cases may provide the United States with a practical model to follow for a future system of conduct since they have “left as much room as possible for medical professionals to apply the norms of medical ethics and the medical standard to unique situations” (Griffiths 265). Additionally, the openness of the Dutch situation concerning the practices of PAS and euthanasia has helped foster public confidence in what doctors are doing an how authorities are handling it (Griffiths 269). It would jeopardize patients’ autonomy, the handling of palliative care, the basis of medical ethics and our society’s value for life and transparency if criminalized, unregulated and secretive practices of PAS and euthanasia were to continue. Therefore, legalization and open regulation must be seriously considered as possible policy

During our visit to The Hague, Steven Pleiter, CEO of the Levenseindekliniek stated, “We are not trying to change the law, but rather define the borders within the law.” To me, such a stance on euthanasia policy is troubling, as his argument appears internally inconsistent. In my view, redefining the borders of the law is not mutually exclusive from changing the law. When one attempts to define the extent of the law, they are also acting in such a manner that will indirectly, but eventually lead to its revision. Pleiter’s intention of adding new cases, which adhere to euthanasia law, is to define the borders of the law, not change the law¬¬––he wants people who are suffering to be permitted to make the autonomous decision for euthanasia, which is a fair cause. However, with the addition of more and more acceptable circumstances by which euthanasia is permissible, an oversaturation of extremely similar, yet unique, cases will eventually compound and distort the law’s initial definition. Each euthanasia or PAD case differs from the others by some amount––various cases may have similar details, but each patient has a unique medical history and set of circumstances that must be accounted for by a physician. When there is an aggregation of permitted euthanasia cases for sixteen and seventeen year olds, inevitably a point will

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.

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 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.

When one analyzes the social consequences that would result from sanctioning practices of killing, one notices that it would involve serious risks of abuse and misuse and, on balance, would cause more harm than benefit to society (Beauchamp 2014, 90). If euthanasia were to be legalized and practiced in a society, there are bound to be negative consequences as a result of it. Euthanasia is the un-natural separation that occurs between the body and the soul. The two are in tandem with one another and can only be or should be separated by the law of nature. Un-natural separation in this manner can only bring about bad energy and over time, can be the cause of numerous problems within the community. Despite the restrictions that society were to place on the number of patients qualified for euthanasia; these restrictions and policies would expand over time, with ever-increasing possibilities for unjustified killing and thus abusing the system (Beauchamp 2014, 90).

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.