Euthanasia Should Be Legalized Out Of Compassion For Those Slowly And Painfully Dying

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.

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

Patients suffering from terminal illnesses, battle feeling worthless and hopeless on a daily basis. This is due to our jurisdiction forcing them to live. The number of people suffering continues to increase. Although a doctor’s position is to prolong life, euthanasia should be considered in certain cases. Because of the advances in technology euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now an option for terminally ill patients who are going to suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized because the public supports it, it would only be used for patients who are terminally ill, and it alleviates unnecessary suffering. The word euthanasia originates

The main points to argue in favor of physician assisted suicide are: the alleviation of the patients’ pain, the fact that active euthanasia is consented from the patients and it is their personal choice, the patients can die with dignity, the predetermined death will lessen healthcare costs for the family, and the physician is able to move on and help other patients in need.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

Firstly, one of the main arguments for euthanasia is autonomy and patients’ rights to make their own decisions.

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

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.

The debates about euthanasia in the United States date all the way back to the 12th century. During this time, Christian values increased the public’s opinion against euthanasia. The church taught its followers that euthanasia not only injures individual people and their communities, but also violates God’s authority over life. This idea spread far and wide throughout the public until the 18th century when the renaissance and reformation writers attacked the church and its teachings. However, the public did not pay much attention to the writings and still opposed euthanasia. Then, in 1828, New York became the first state to outlaw assisted suicide as well as euthanasia. After that, many states followed suit and, 40 years later, most states had made assisted suicide a crime. Nevertheless, the fight to legalize euthanasia still went on and, in 1870, Samuel Williams proposed using morphine as a way to quicken the death of a terminally ill patient. His proposal accumulated widespread fame in medical journals and scientific meetings, but in 1885 the American Medical Association took a stance against Williams’ proposal and ended all discussions.

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.

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.

The modern world is full of pain and suffering. Unlike past centuries where human beings had to mainly deal with communicable ailments such as malaria, HIV/AIDS, they are now faced with incurable diseases that steal their purpose of existence, making it intolerable, and often having people wishing for death. Despite its rapid development, the modern biomedical interventions have offered very little hope in saving lives or relieving pain (Ventegodt, Andersen and Merrick 1109). In the light of these challenges, human beings have only been left with the option of seeking death. In such aspirations, euthanasia has emerged as the most sought after approach since it maintains dignity when compared to other approaches such as suicide. In addition, it helps patients avoid discomfort, pain, and suffering that lowers the quality of life (Biggs 5). As this paper seeks to highlight, all individuals should laud euthanasia. This follows its role in relieving human beings of intractable sufferings and pain. Terminal ailments such as cancer and associated conditions such as pressure ulcers among hospitalized and bed ridden patients do not only lead to suffering but carries away comfort of life. According to this, lauding euthanasia is the only way of promoting quality of life and avoiding suffering when a person is on their deathbed. However, legal and ethical perspectives should