Euthanasia Is Criminal and Inmoral

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

It also means that it slides from terminally ill patients using it, to anybody using it. For instance, people who become depressed and may see this as an option to end their depression, if it became available in the UK. For something as minor as depression (compared to terminal cancer), which can be treated through doctors and psychologists someone could take their life if they had this option. Also, doctors could see it as an opportunity to free up beds in a hospital and save it money at the same time. A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients [Arch. Intern. Med., 5/11/98, p. 974]. This suggests to us that medical costs do influence doctors’ opinions.

In the article Euthanasia’s slippery slope by Charles Lane, he will tell you that euthanasia is being practiced more and move and it really isn’t a good idea. Charles Lane states “ Observe that the reports seem to validate concerns about where these practices might lead. (Lanes) This quote states that if it is practiced enough than doctors will just do it without second thought. The article also states “ What is presented at first as a right is going to become a kind of obligation.” (Lanes) This helps my argument by proving that doctors will soon go against all beliefs and euthanasia will become a second hand nature. In conclusion, people shouldn’t use mercy killing to end someone’s life, they have the right to live a full life that God has planned for them.

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.

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 do understand that there are ethical codes that must be upheld by those practicing medicine. I also understand that euthanasia pushes the boundaries of those ethical codes. Physicians have a responsibility to do what is thought to be in the best interest of their patients. Who says that a peaceful death opposed to an unbearably painful one isn’t in the best interest of the patient? Dr. Philip Nitschke explains that “at Exit International [their] motto is ‘a peaceful

People, are incensed because in Muslim beliefs one is not allowed to commit suicide, which also applies to Christianity. (Source I). Several Journalists have also stated against euthanasia because they believe that life is truthfully sanctified and that “God” created life, so one cannot choose to die. (Source A). The Hippocratic oath as well specifically reads that doctors or physicians are not sanctioned to kill patients. (Source M). Even though many people are against euthanasia the citizens still want options for the end of their own life. (Source C). If the alternatives are inadequate and regulated the agony of the patients does not go away; numerous places have already legalized euthanasia, such as the Netherlands in 2002 being the first. Similarly, Japan’s Shintoists believe that people and patients should be sanctioned to die if they request for it. (Source C). In the Netherlands, 85 percent of the doctors will and can also consider facilitating patients and people in death. (Source B). Even though the Hippocratic oath states that doctors are not to kill their patients, there are two main forms of euthanasia- passive and active. (Source C). The two central forms of euthanasia do not go against regulations because subsequently those doctors have to be in accordance with the patients and people. (Source C).

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.

Legalizing euthanasia would cause a very huge despair and depression for the relatives of the deceased person. The family would feel responsible and depressed when taking the decision whether or not their family member should continue living. By legalizing euthanasia and its applications it will bring undesirable and unforgettable feelings for the

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally

Legalizing euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. Modern medicine has brought great benefits to humanity such as prolonging life, but by prolonging life it is also

According to the Oxford dictionary, euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma. Those in favor argue that this is done motivated by kindness and a desire to end suffering. Those against Euthanasia understand why those in favor of Euthanasia say it is ok to practice it, but one must understand that Euthanasia is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. According to the Hippocratic Oath doctors should never, “give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art” (par. 4). This oath is taken by all doctors after

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.