Euthanasia Should Not Be Legal Essay

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.

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

In a 2014 article done by Health Research Funding they stated that, “According to research, some 66% of U.S. adults believe that a doctor or nurse should allow a patient to die in certain circumstances” (25 Surprising Physician Assisted Suicide Statistics, 2014). Physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia should not just be a matter of law but as well as free will. In this essay, I am using a virtue approach to contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal. Is it moral to allow people to end their lives suffering? It helps people, saves money and useless drugs and treatment that does not work it being wasted. It ends suffering without the stigma of suicide and it allows the person to make peace and go on their own terms when they want to, so there is not a shock or surprise. You can say goodbye and end it when you are ready.

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

Euthanasia and the closely related procedure, assisted suicide, are some of the most highly debated topics in ethics. Although the procedures are different in name, their definitions are quite similar. Euthanasia can be defined in two ways: passive or active. Passive euthanasia is defined as allowing the patient’s illness to kill them; refusing medical treatment. Active euthanasia, however, is defined as killing through lethal injection, which also happens to be known as assisted suicide. From the perspective of the deeply religious to those who just value the life of both themselves and others, euthanasia and assisted suicide are fancy terms for murder. From my perspective, euthanasia and assisted suicide are procedures that should only be allowed for those who are suffering from incurable and physically painful illnesses that incapacitate them to the point where they cannot properly function in society. What constitutes “proper function in society” will be discussed later on, but it plays a pivotal role in the decision that one makes to die or not. Now some may disagree and say that no matter the circumstance, one does not have the right to end their own life; this too will be discussed in further detail. This essay will focus on the aspects mentioned above and will provide the necessary answer to this debate between life and death.

Contrary to consequentialism, utilitarian, and beneficence view, relieving a patient from their pain and suffering by performing euthanasia should not be considered as bringing more good than harm. To support the argument, extrinsic and intrinsic results of legalizing euthanasia are added into perspective. The extrinsic result of legalizing euthanasia is a destruction of relation of law, humanity, and medicine while the

Due to the concern of many incurable patients, it is rarely known that Euthanasia, a termination of one’s life with his/her self-willingness, is a release of permanent pain. On the other hand, it is committed by the doctors. Among Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia, only is Voluntary Euthanasia being universally concerned by human beings. Various fascinating facts, Australia has already approved this act and many people from other countries have also committed Euthanasia. Regarding this topic, people have been in many debates about whether performing Euthanasia. The majority of the debates is talking about in two areas of knowledge, Ethics and the Human Sciences. Some say Euthanasia is still a way of killing and more importantly, most of the doctors cannot manipulate their mental pressure after “murdering” the patients. Unlikely, some believe that Euthanasia helps the patients to quickly end their torture from the incurable illness. Therefore, I will address the concern of Euthanasia in the United States and also propose some possible solutions to the Department of Health in the United States. As a result, I support establishing Euthanasia into the United States’ constitution of the Department of Health.

The religious argument is often the most common argument used by people against euthanasia and is in agreeance with the deontological ethical perspective in that there is sanctity in life. Various religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islamic faiths share this same idea that God is the creator therefore only God has the right to end a life. Individual whom assist a person in taking their own life therefore are acting against God’s will and committing a sin (Fraser, 2000).

The interpretation of euthanasia, whether it is voluntary or involuntary, varies with each individual. The concept of euthanasia continues to be a debated and argued and it remains to be a complex ethical situation for all involved. This paper summarizes one individual’s philosophy and values with regard to this ethical issue.

The journal article establishes the main points to understand the concept of euthanasia, such as: basis, legislation, religious view of euthanasia, among others. This article introduces the debate about the euthanasia and the author introduces the topic with the following question: Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death? In order to answer this question, the author through the journal article gives their point of view about euthanasia, also presents positive and negative arguments to be discussed about the topic. Furthermore, the article presents different religions points of view such as: Islam religion, Buddhism religion, Judaism religion, among others that give their opinion about the euthanasia, and also

It is a fact that when we talk about euthanasia, it generates a disagreement between the general public. This is a topic that many want to avoid, but others want to inquire a little more. “Euthanasia is a termination of a very ill person’s life in order to relieve them from their sufferings” (Ethic of Euthanasia- Introduction). This essay will discuss the ethical implication as well of the religion implication this topic generates.

“According to Jewish law, a dying man is regarded as a living person in all respects. Active euthanasia is considered murder” (Kohl, 6). To Christians, “only God had the right to give and take life, active euthanasia was viewed as an illicit exercise of divine prerogative” (Hamel, 20). According to traditional Christian beliefs documented by Thomas Aquinas, all forms of suicide and/or euthanasia were condemned for the following reasons: “1) it violates one’s natural desire to live, 2) it harms other people, 3) life is the gift of God and is thus only to be taken by God” (Religious Tolerance, 3). But despite strong religious beliefs, euthanasia tends to “occur in all societies, including those in which it is held immoral” (Microsoft). The issue of euthanasia has been a hotly debated topic of various religious and political groups. The main question posed by each group is whether or not a person should be given the option to request assistance in dying. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person is: 1) suffering from a terminal illness, 2)unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness, 3) suffering intolerable pain as a result of the illness 4) has an enduring and rational wish to die, and 5) unable to commit suicide without assistance, then there should be legal and medical provision to enable him/her to be allowed or assisted to die

In the societies around the world the term Euthanasia has been refuse during decades. Most of people have made their own opinion about it, based in not liable information like rumours or something that read in somewhere. The purpose of this report is give a brief explanation about Euthanasia, touching the main aspects such as classification, legal, ethical and religious aspects and human rights related with dying people in order to explain this term and allow each person to decide if support it or disapproval it.

The first claim, that it is economic wise may not be direct and understandable through common sense. As some people may regard human as precious resource of society that benefit the economy, however, most patient who receive Euthanasia are often not far from death and incapable of returning to workforce. They are rather regarded as burden of society by keeping them alive meaninglessly.

One of the main problems of euthanasia is religion. There are number of religion are against euthanasia. Euthanasia is sin for many religions like Catholic, Hindu, Islamic, Sikh, Buddhist and many other religions. Some of the things have been said in catholic religion like”#2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and