Euthanasia: The Solution Is a Bad Idea

Thirdly, from the medical morality perspective, euthanasia is assisting suicide that violates the morals and values of the medical world. Current mindset of doctors is to heal their patients. They have the goal to fight to the end for the lives of their patients. But, if euthanasia is allowed, doctors will be put in a mindset which implies to only help patients if they measure up to a certain standard. Therefore, life is so devalued that it no longer deserves to be fought for until the end. This mentality that once life hits a certain point, it is a hopeless situation and should be brought to an end immediately sets the medical world in the pathway that leads to all types of immoralities.

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

Euthanasia has been one of the most controversial and debatable topics in recent years. Even though the debate about euthanasia seems to be very complex and problematic, it is important to analyze very deeply some problems and questions related to this issue in order to indicate adequate solutions in terms of possible legislation. First step is to identify the proper definition of euthanasia as an act of causing a person's death to end unbearable pain and suffering. In addition, there are many forms of euthanasia; categorizing those forms and highlighting the development of understanding this concept over time, is necessary to understand, that involuntary euthanasia is unacceptable as it violets the basic human rights.

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.

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.

If someone has a life threating disease and wishes death, it should be granted to them. The prolonging of the suffering of dying patients is an unethical practice that should be stopped. Euthanasia as of today in the majority of states is illegal. My opinion on Euthanasia is that it should be legalized because the patients get to die with dignity, on their own terms

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can often get confused with one another and although both are 2 different practices, they share the same end goal; a peaceful death. Today, only a few countries in the entire world have legalized the practice of euthanasia, showing just how controversial the topic has become in recent years. Should someone be able to die just because they feel like it or should valid reasons be required? And who gets to decide whether an assisted suicide is allowed or not? The answers to questions like these are never simple but to guarantee the freedoms of liberty that were given to many in the form of government constitutions, all these questions and more must be answered. Although life on Earth is a gift that was

First of all, it would be going against the Hippocratic Oath which is the oath that all medicine practitioners have to take and follow (Ruggles online). The original English version of the oath states,” I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Ruggles online). This means that the said physician will not give any harmful medications or drugs to the patient, even if it was a request. Going against the Hippocratic Oath would mean that the doctor is violating their rights and responsibilities as a healer and becoming the killer. Another damage to the medicinal world would be that it gives too much power to the doctor. According to a 1990 government sponsored survey in the Netherlands, 0.8% of all euthanasia deaths were involuntary, meaning without consent of the patient (Marker online). In 1995, the same survey found out that Dutch doctors performed involuntary euthanasia on 948 patients (Marker online). Legalizing euthanasia could lead to more involuntary euthanasia and the deaths of innocent people who have their lives taken away from them. It gives doctors too much power because they have the power and technology to end another person’s life. Involuntary euthanasia is also illegal because euthanasia is meant to be legally performed after one written request and two oral requests from the patient

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

Opponents, meanwhile, assert that suicide is unethical and a mortal sin for which the deceased cannot receive forgiveness. They view assisted suicide as “assisted murder” and claim that modern healthcare can provide almost everyone a peaceful, pain-free, comfortable, and dignified end to life. There is also a fear of dying which includes pain, abandonment, and loss of control; all of which, opponents argue, hospices can alleviate (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman, 2007). These two differing viewpoints complicate the government’s ability to formulate legislation that both protects individual’s right to die and prevents wrongful deaths.

Since 1947, Gallup has released surveys to the United States population asking, “When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it?” (Emanuel). In 2005, 75% of the surveyed population agreed with this statement. Although there has been a consistent majority in public support to this issue as reported by Gallup, euthanasia still remains illegal in the United States. One of the main reasons why many people are against the legalization of euthanasia is that many view human life as sacred and the intentional termination of life is murder. It is important to clarify that the difference between murder and euthanasia lies in the motive. While both are technically forms of deprivation from life, euthanasia is altruistic, because “its goal is mitigating the pain and suffering of the patient,” whereas murder is hateful and unwanted by the victim (Turanjanin, pg. 1318). Providing a suffering, terminally ill patient that will inevitably perish a more peaceful and controlled way to depart from this life (when it is requested) is a form of mercy. Those actively fighting against the legalization of euthanasia are

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.

Many who are not given that choice end their lives in gruesome and traumatic ways, such as guns, overdose, hanging, or even monoxide inhalation (Frater). They often do this in an effort to regain control of their bodies. Legalization of euthanasia would give that back to them. Some opponents of legalization, however, are afraid that some doctors would abuse their right, resulting in mistreatment of patients and malpractice. Many also feel that allowing patients to end their lives would be cheating them of time. Modern medicine is constantly changing, developing, and expanding. It’s important that people live for the possibility of recovery

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.

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong