Is It Insane And Cruel?

Euthanasia refers to the intentional bringing about of the death of a patient, either by killing him/her, or by letting him/her die, for the patient's sake to prevent further pain or suffering from a terminal illness. Euthanasia is a complex issue in many underlying theological, sociological, moral, and legal aspects. Its legalization is heavily debated around the world, with strong arguments made for both sides of the issue. The supporters of euthanasia often repeated that "We have to respect the freedom of the patient" or "people should be able to exercise control over their own lives and death." However, Euthanasia, by nature, is "wrongfully killing" or "mercy killing", and if we allow any type of euthanasia, all sorts of negative

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of putting an end to a patient’s life for the purpose of ending the patients suffering. But can it ever be right to kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering? To kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering, is considered homicide. Over the past years euthanasia has been defeated and become illegal in every country besides Netherland and Belgium. I am afraid that if euthanasia could have been legalised in those two countries, it’s a matter of time; the whole world would approval and soon follows the Dutch’s example of ‘good and easy death.’ Once legalised, euthanasia will become a means of health care containment, will become involuntary and would not only apply for the terminally ill,

According to the USCCB’s “Assisted Suicide: From Voluntary to Involuntary”, in 2014 in Belgium, restrictions to age limits were removed for euthanasia. This extended this so-called freedom to children of all ages. An infant that was only four days old was euthanized in 1993 for having the birth defect, spina bifida. The physicians proposed this euthanization and completed it with the parents’ consent (USCCB 2017). Aside from the fact that the whole practice of euthanasia is immoral, the infant was unable to consent to the procedure. In general, no procedure should be done without the consent of the patient, let alone, a procedure that promotes the death of the patient. If an arbitrary line is drawn, someone will try to cross it. Once the principle is put into place, it leads down a slippery slope. The case of The Netherlands is evidence that if allowed, doctors will cross the line and take the choice away from the

I think the topic of euthanasia is very complex. Some people make a strong argument that it is completely immoral, regardless of the situation, and others confidently argue that it would be in the best interest of the patient. In my answer, I used moral absolutism to say that euthanasia is wrong. I still don't know if I can concretely say if I personally think euthanasia is completely right or wrong. When I sit to think about the issue, I constantly go back and forth on my feelings about it.

Many people believe that euthanasia should be legal and they all have perfectly good reasons to believe so. Relating to ethics, many people argue that everyone deserves freedom of

After reading the article, “ Should Terminally Ill Children Have the Right to Ask For Their Own Death?”, children should not have the right to choose their death. One reason is that a child 's brain isn’t much like an adults, their brains aren’t as developed. Therefore, they can’t comprehend death. The article argues, “ Minors may not have the mental capacity or vocabulary to request death”(Trianni). For example, a nurse says , “ I never had a child asking to end his life,” children indeed say , “ It’s really hard’ or “I’m fed up”(Trianni). Meaning, children aren’t tired of living their simply tired of their situation. The article also points out children may be the ones requesting death but ultimately they shouldn 't and won’t be the ones making the decisions. Children shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death date.

Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics in modern society, and every human being has a different view on it according to their culture, their nation's

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.

Other nations aim at ensuring the child lives a normal life. Thirdly, though the Groningen protocols and Euthanasia Acts have improved the reporting of euthanasia cases research still shows that 20% of the cases are still not reported to the authorities. The cases also have not been prosecuted even though they have broken the law (Beauchamp 78). Many people are certain that once a specific mentality is made legal then this automatically opens up the Pandor’s box. More consequences surrounding the mentality are bound to cause

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.

Most people do not like to talk or even think about death; much less the topic of ending one’s own life. However, for some, death is a desired alternative to living in agony. Euthanasia has been a topic of debate since antiquity, and both sides stand firm on their beliefs. The right to choose death is illegal in most countries. I believe in people’s freedom to do what they please with their own bodies. The basic right of liberty is what America was founded on. Euthanasia should be a legal option.

First of all, what is euthanasia? It is something that not many people think about until they or a friend or family member is put in a position where they might actually have to consider it. Euthanasia, in the dictionary, simply is: the action of ending someone’s life in a painless way. It seems pretty simple but in reality it is a lot more complicated, not only for the people involved but for the society in general as well.

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.

Euthanizing an infant, however, can only occur if the doctor can independently affirm certain symptoms of the infant’s diagnosis – if “there is evidence of hopeless and unbearable suffering” (Nuwer). Of course, the consent of the parents is a requirement as well and medical procedures are undertaken and the case is thoroughly documented (Nuwer). It is understandable that a parent would be devastated knowing their child, their own flesh and blood, is not going to live a comfortable life as their days come to an end. It would be a much better and easier method to resort to euthanasia. When a person’s life is coming to an end in a matter of days, a more reasonable approach to it would be to provide proper end-of-life care if requested. An individual has the right to determine when their last day should be if they are suffering from a terminal illness if it is quickly approaching.

On March 3rd 2014, the law was changed in Belgium to abolish all age restrictions on euthanasia. This amendment allows euthanasia for terminally ill children who are exposed to “constant and unbearable suffering” (1). The act was passed in the Belgian Parliament with 86 votes in favour, and 44 against (with 12 abstentions). This amends Belgium’s previous law, “The Belgian Act on Euthanasia”, which was passed in 2002 (2), whereby euthanasia was only available to individuals over the age of eighteen or emancipated minors. There are several arguments in favour of this amendment including the belief that the rights of autonomy and justice must extend to children. Furthermore, prolonging life where the child has a loss of dignity and a reduced quality of life is seen by some as inhumane. In contrast, opponents of the amendment believe that the child’s right to life and doctor’s obligation to save life are both severely undermined. Opponents are concerned that a child does not possess the capacity to make the decision to end their own life. There is also the worry that granting paediatric euthanasia may lead to a ‘slippery slope’ whereby children could be euthanized without making a fully voluntary request. Despite the fact that public opinion was broadly in favour of the amendment (3), the question must be asked, was the amendment of this law in favour of murder or mercy?