Objections Against Legalizing Euthanasia in Hong Kong

Moreover, from the legislation perspective, the height of arbitrariness, injustice and abuse is reached if euthanasia is legalized, since there is no sufficient legal resort to exercising euthanasia. It is accepted the possibility that even other people may sign a request for euthanasia on behalf of the incapacitated patient and in the presence of witnesses. In addition, the law doesn't provide any specific punishment against physicians giving euthanasia without the necessary requisites. The choice of euthanasia becomes serious when it takes the form of a murder committed by

In fact, according to a recent poll almost 42% of surveyed supported euthanasia and 37% opposed (Fig 1). A lot of controversy surrounding this issue stems from the fact that euthanasia has been analyzed not only from juridical perspective, whether or not it should be legal, but also from various medical, social, philosophical, religious points of view. The topic seems to be extremely relevant not only because it is related to the basic principles of society regarding life and death, but also it affects every person, especially who suffers from a terminal illness. This study tries to indicate possible solutions for some questions related to euthanasia in order to show that in many cases euthanasia can be avoided by adequate treatment and that proper and clearly legislation is necessary to protect patients. For the purpose of this paper, euthanasia can be defined as “conduct that brings about an easy and painless death for persons suffering from an incurable or painful disease or condition” (Muckart, Gopalan, Hardcastle, Hodgson, & McQuoid-Mason, 2014, p. 259). Even though the issue of proper definition of euthanasia is still debatable, the question of classification of euthanasia seems to be less problematic. In fact, many scholars agree that euthanasia may be classified as voluntary (because of the will), non-voluntary (without specific will), involuntary (against the will) and divided according to active (use of lethal substances) and passive options (termination of treatment). Euthanasia differs also from assisted suicide. The former means to help someone to die, the latter means to help a person kill him or

First, Euthanasia will alter one’s perception of the medical profession. Euthanasia is clearly against the Hippocratic Oath of Doctors. The Hippocratic Oath informs that doctors can never be involved in the killing of people. Making assisted suicide a choice develops uncertainties. For example, if the medicine was given to a doctor who has a wicked mindset, it can be misused and cause serious hurt. Giving doctors the right, in law, to cause the death of their patients will never be safe and no safeguards protect patients. There will always be people who will abuse the power to cause death and there will always be more reasons to cause death(Schadenberg). Likewise, it could be the other way around, a patient suffering depression may misuse the treatment to end their life based on feelings. Doctors are trained to ensure that people can recover from their problems Assisted suicide represents an abandonment of people who live with depression who require support and proper care (Schadenberg). Regardless of clinical judgement, medics need to be devoted to improving care for patients throughout and at the close of life.

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.

The matter of euthanasia and assisted suicide is one of the most widely debated public policies in the UK today. Its legalisation will undoubtedly affect family and patient-doctor relationships and also challenge the concepts of what is considered to be ethical behaviour (Marker and Hamlon, 2005). But with overwhelming public support for its legalisation and unregulated assisted dying already common place in the medical profession (Doward 2004), surely a regulated system with the strictest safeguards in the world would be a preferable solution (Voluntary euthanasia society, 2004). The problems outlined by the 'slippery slope' theory and anti euthanasia groups present some powerful arguments against its legalisation, but after all, should it not be ones own choice of how and when to end their own life if they are suffering intolerable physical or mental pain (Doward 2004)?

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

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.

Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people need to be in charge of their lives, statements from critics, and the serious evaluation process when chosen. Euthanasia can reserve all rights towards an individual’s choice towards death or not, because it is the person who has to endure and agonize through the incurable illness. An individual’s perspective on a situation is through their eyes and no one else, that is why euthanasia produces the choice of being alive or

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.

The ethical debate on non-voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue due to its multifaceted nature. This topic examines the morality of ending a human’s life in circumstances where the person is incapable of issuing explicit consent. These cases would include utilizing euthanasia on very young children or someone in a vegetative state. There lacks consent with young children since they cannot speak to provide consent. Explicit consent is lacking with someone in a vegetative state since they are incapable of deciding at that moment to continue living or end their life.

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.

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

Present-day society and modern medicine face difficult decisions every day. In all terminally ill cases, there is important agreement among many religious traditions who believe that preserving life is considered to be morally obligated. However, the euthanasia supporters argue it should be private that an individual’s decision to volunteer to die because it does not harm others. Regarding the issue of legalizing euthanasia, the government should offer psychological therapy for those who perform the act of helping the patient in need rather than commit so called murder. In efforts to change the law to allow patients to legally receive an assistance to die might be the only way to prevent such suffering. Ultimately this decision to change the law is to give human right of all individuals to decide how to lead their own lives, which would include how and when to die in order to provide them peace of mind as their suffering and means of life deteriorates rapidly. To prevent abuse of these such assisted suicide practices, there must be laws that would have to be set and followed by patients and health professions. Independence and choice are important values in any society, but they are not without limits.

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises