Pros And Cons Of Legalizing Euthanasia

Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).

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.

People base euthanasia and physician assisted suicide on a moral and legal stand point. A health care physicians obligation is to provide support to their patients and to the families throughout treatment and death. Autonomous individuals should be free to decide their own fate when an important life choice concerns a private matter, and when the individual making that choice is near death and suffering without relief, then the state should not interfere unless it can prove that interference is necessary to protect vulnerable third parties (Schafer). People should have the right to request that their life be terminated through medical methods.

First, If the harmed vulnerable are in majority of the physician-assisted euthanasia, very unlikely, there is clearly something wrong here and euthanasia should never be legalized because it is causing way more harm than good. However, if the physician-assisted euthanasia is not legalized due to few cases of those vulnerable being harmed by it, we are potentially ignoring the majority of the competent patient who want it now cannot get it because it is illegal to everyone. (650c1) Secondly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia would reassure the right to the patient, similar to patient’s right to their own treatment. lastly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia allow those terminally ill patients now have second options rather than coursing through life-sustaining treatment that in most cases are painful and agonizing, it is more humane to end life quickly and peacefully. (651c1) Therefore, even if few cases of vulnerable populations being harmed by physician-assisted euthanasia, we should not ignore the fact that legalizing it would yield much higher good than

The oath is still used by physicians to treat the ill to the best of one’s ability, to preserve a patient’s privacy, to teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, and so on. The oath states, “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” Euthanasia doesn't break the hippocratic oath because it’s not harming a patient if the patient is suffering while alive. Applying for the benefit of the sick no matter what measures are required can mean ending a patient’s life who is suffering from an incurable disease. The main purpose of the oath is for a physician to swear to do no harm. Allowing a suffering patient to live is doing more harm than letting them choose to end their life. Fifty five percent of terminally ill patients will die in pain; legalizing Euthanasia will drop this staggering number tremendously. Euthanasia also has a connection with abortion, which is legal. Abortion is the killing of a foetus and euthanasia is the killing of a terminally ill patient. If abortion is legal and accepted then euthanasia should be legalized and

Obviously, the proponents and opponents of legalizing euthanasia/assisted-suicide are fighting for what they believe is right. On the side of the proponents, they believe that patient’s should have the freedom to end their own life if they choose. They believe in the right-to-die and that everyone should have the ability to choose what they do with their own body. Contrasting this viewpoint, the

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

According to Linda Jackson in Euthanasia, a total of 42 people in Oregon had passed away due to physician-assisted suicide. This fact proves the efficiency of euthanasia to be successful in helping to relieve the terminally ill of their excruciating pain. Additionally, suicide is in fact legal in the states within Australia, so there are a vast amount of states that do allow suicide, however, they do not allow assisted suicide, which are very similar. Many states have opposed to euthanasia due to religious issues and the argument that euthanasia goes against the doctor’s oath to swear to do their best for the patient and commit no harm (Jackson 5). In contrast, euthanasia is not the only operation that would go against what is known as the Hippocratic Oath because in the original Oath, it also had prohibited abortions, surgery, and charging teaching fees, in which, in certain situations, are all allowed today. Being so, the argument stating that doctors are going against the Oath all because of euthanasia is invalid (Jackson 31). Christian attitudes and other major religions of the world pose a problem as well due to the issue of suicide being considered as a sin.

For physicians, participating in euthanasia is against the Hippocratic Oath. This is the oath for anyone in the medical practice that states the conducts and moral practices of physicians. Physicians must respect and value all human lives. Not only will this practice violate the oath, but it also will break the respect and trust between the patient and the physician. There are actually two versions of the oath. The first is the original version. The second is the modern version. Both have the same meaning but different wording. One difference between the two is the content of euthanasia and abortion. The modernized version says “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life..”. Although this new version of the oath allows euthanasia, there is still the original version which does not allow physicians to assist any patient in death. Within the original Hippocratic Oath it states: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect... '. This

Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia in the United States breaches the basic principles medical doctors practice by violating the Hippocratic Oath, damaging the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient, and creating opportunities for abuse. Euthanasia’s legalization allowing physicians to perform assisted suicide defy fundamental elements a physician values. Most primitively, a doctor assisting a patient in her or her death through euthanasia violates an oath taken by all physicians before entering the medical field. This oath is known as the Hippocratic Oath and is taken to guide physicians to make ethical and caring decisions for their patients. John Safranek writes about the Oath’s essentials in his article, “Autonomy and Assisted Suicide: the Execution of Freedom.” In it, he says, “The Hippocratic Oath, professed by doctors through the

The first argument for legalising euthanasia indicates to autonomy and fundamental right. Life is extremely precious and must be protected but not at any circumstances, like, a patient who is suffering from physical pain cause of terminal ill and wishing to eradicate from the endless pain. It is a fundamental right to everyone to make decision about those things are momentous to us, like, how we die (Short, 2016). Therefore, many supporters of euthanasia perceive that everyone has the right to control their body and life, and should be free to decide at what time, and in which manner they will die (Brooks,

In closing, euthanasia should be legal and it should not be procedure that’s looked downed upon. This is because there are thousands of terminally ill patients that are seeking an end for their endless suffering. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is something that every human being in the world should be entitled too. But unfortunately, for people that have an incurable illness/sickness, and that need to take daily dosage of pain medicine life becomes more of a curse than a blessing. This is why I believe that it’s not only inhumane to prolong their lives and therefore, their suffering. But I also believe it goes against our constitutional right as citizen of The United States of America in our pursuit of happiness. Legalizing euthanasia will not only be a step forward to our development as a country, but it will also be setting an example and a guideline for other countries

I am strongly opposing the act of euthanasia upon terminally ill patient. According to Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia means the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma and according to Euthanasia (2014), it is defined as the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. There are many kinds of euthanasia including voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, assisted suicide, euthanasia by action, and euthanasia by omission. Lethal injection, lethal oral drugs, starvation, dehydration, and use of gases and plastic bags are among the methods of euthanasia (Life, 2011). Passive euthanasia is a non-intentional death and is not considered as euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is a medical action and includes withdrawal of ineffective treatment, too burdensome or unwanted, necessary high dose of pain-killers that may endanger life, and treatment that brings no benefit. These practices are endorsed by law when they are properly done (Euthanasia, 2014).

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should

Euthanasia is one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this