Legalization of Euthanasia in the United Kingdom

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

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.

For a quite a while, Euthanasia and assisted suicide have been a topic of debate. The concern stretches from the legal, moral, religious and emotional basis. The query at hand is "what is the appropriate response to assisted suicide?" As opposed to Wolf's hastened response of "No". It is widely accepted that there are varied reasons for allowing Physician-assisted suicide. However, Euthanasia is not as widely permitted. Reason to this is that physician assisted suicide is not like to be abused; since patients take the last, calamitous step. For Euthanasia, which is Mercy killing; abuse may result with the Physicians patient's relative taking up to advocate for their own wishes the patient having little or nothing to do about it.

The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed and a dangerous practice has been set. The concern is that a society that permits voluntary euthanasia will progressively change its stances to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia. Legal voluntary euthanasia could ultimately lead to a widespread range of unanticipated consequences, such as very ill people who need endless care, or people with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not and do not feel as a problem to their family and occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about an individuals diagnosis and position, and the person may choose euthanasia after

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are two similar topics which are constantly countered with extremely weak statements, such as “the argument that if we respect the liberty of some individuals to choose assisted death we will thereby expose the ill and frail to an increased risk of abuse or exploitation” (Schafer, “the case for legalization”), which is commonly known as the “slippery slope” debate. However, several countries and select states in the United States who have legalized euthanasia have not shown any signs of “slippery slopes”. In fact, these areas have actually demonstrated that:

The ethical dilemma of this highly controversial subject will continue to split our approach to the notion of assisted suicide. As we age, we come to terms with our own mortality, how we choose to leave this world isn’t always up us. For those who suffer from a terminal fate, maybe they should have the choice, and those who understand their current condition can provide them the dignity they deserve without repercussions. The only way we as a society can move ahead, is to find a common

In today’s modern society, to prohibit a law or practice takes greater effort and stronger argument than permitting a law or practice. In result of this, the rights and liberty of an individual are very important and would require captivating reasons to overrule it. Since the decision to choose for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is extremely personal, the famous “innocent until proven guilty” is to be stressed to a great extent when dealing with this topic on debate terms. An individual has a basic right to determine the course of

The main objective of this chapter is to highlight the predominant arguments in favour and against assisted dying. The analysis of these arguments and the provision of an extensive list of safeguards that would be included with the legalisation of assisted dying support the overarching argument that a liberal society must uphold the right to individual autonomy. And therefore, as long as strict safeguards are in place must allow suffering individuals the choice to end their

[The criminal code of Canada states] “everyone who councils, aids, or abets someone to commit suicide whether or not suicide ensures , is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” 1 It is this law which violates the human right to life as well as creates a widely spread controversy over whether or not euthanasia should become legalized in Canada. 2 Legalizing euthanasia would create many benefits for those who suffer from a terminal illness, giving them freedom and control over their own lives. Euthanasia should be legalized in Canada; this is because the euthanasia law is not consistently applied, it would create medical advances for Canada which would bring the country up to speed with other countries around the world, and legalizing euthanasia would benefit those who wish to die by preventing inhumane suicidal crimes from occurring. 3

Assisted suicide looks good and innocent on paper, but the legalization of mercy killing carries a dark side. Once that door is opened, it may not be easily closed. Regulations can be in place but fraud is rampant in insurance and in the medical field no matter how much it is regulated. In Taking Sides, Clashing Views in Lifespan Development, a statement is made that directly shows the slippery slope of legalized assisted suicide; “In the words of an Australian politician, when we are past our “best before” or “use by” date, we should be checked out quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible.” This view sums up the argument of why not. The mystery of life and death are taken away and humans become industrialized as a piece of meat. Legalization would also affect medical education and training of physicians. The goal of doctors is to save lives, but if euthanasia is legalized that could all change.

It is mostly debated that as an expression of autonomy i.e. one’s right to make independent choices without any external influences, a competent adult can refuse medical treatment, even in situations where this could result in his/her death. However, when it comes to actively ending a life via euthanasia it becomes an extensively debate regarding the rights of an individual to make that choice. The article “A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine” loosely examines the negative implications of assisted suicide laws on patients. Toffler’s article sheds light upon how the law has changed the relationship between patients and their medical provider.

Pressing for families and their loved ones, an act to be decided for somebody suffering from pain – physician-assisted suicide is a touchy subject for many. In cases where the intolerable suffering can be judged by the patient, physicians should extend their hands to initiate euthanasia through ethical means. I would say that it can be justified when terminal illnesses restrict the patient in a hospital bed with only the plug binding themselves to their bodies. I would say that it can be justified when the hastened death of somebody would benefit others, when the burden of a human, so sick, carries onto others. It is a fact that a life support program for somebody without the will to live can cost thousands of dollars, in contrast to the smaller

It is obvious discussing physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial issue that is discussed daily by those who wish to die to avoid loss of dignity and also by those who think it is unethical. For physician-assisted suicide to even be considered, the patient must be of sound mind when they are requesting death with dignity. Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for people who are unable to end their own lives. However, there should be safeguards to prevent any sort of abuse. There should be the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, but not for active euthanasia. “It should never be contemplated as a substitute for comprehensive comfort care or for working with patients to resolve the physical, personal, and social challenges posed by the process of dying” (Meier, D.E., p. 294). If an incurable patient who is suffering asks for specific help in physician-assisted suicide, physicians should have the obligation to fully scrutinize the request. Not only is it the seriousness of considering medicine as the placement of certain suicide an issue, it is a form of direct killing. Medical advances are surely making it easier to reduce pain and suffering, so why should there be policies devised and sanctioned by the state to kill those in pain and suffering?

Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I

The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if