Should Euthanasia Be Legal?

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.

Euthanasia has been a hot topic in our society for many years now, but recently euthanasia has made a drastic change. California has become one of the first states in which euthanasia has become legal. Other states have passed the legislation as well; such as Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Euthanasia has become accessible for those patients who suffer from terminal illnesses, therefore people who wish to relieve their painful lives will no longer be required to travel to other states in which euthanasia is legal. There are those people who are up for euthanasia, and there are those who oppose to it. Individuals who are living with constant pain everyday of their lives must have a choice on whether they would like to continue living in pain, or terminating the painful lives. Little by little people are more open about passing this legislature and hopefully someday it is passed in all fifty states of the U.S.A.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

Euthanasia can be a life reliever to the patients in pain and suffering from an illness that is incurable, or can go completely against the morals and values of cultural groups. It is quite controversial, and is debated among society whether it is right to take the life of a patient who requests it or not. The facts must be considered about this issue before any laws and/or guidelines are set into place.

With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Conversely, pro-euthanasia activists believe that legalizing euthanasia should be the primary focus of medical care. While some states have already implemented laws abiding to the practice of euthanasia and PAS, others are not so lenient. The states against euthanasia legalization believe that euthanasia will have a bad effect on society and medical organizations in America. However, according to pro-euthanasia groups, euthanasia is beneficial to a vast number of individuals besides terminal patients. As a matter of fact, euthanasia has recently been considered an option by a much broader range of people, including elderly patients who are non-terminal. Elderly patients concerned about their decrepit state often seek easier ways of dying, rather than engaging healthcare professionals about treatment for problems related to age.

(Young, 1996) Euthanasia has been the subject of both moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human right’s arguments for a number of years. In the modern day usage, euthanasia has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by passive or active steps taken by another person.

Euthanasia is defined as a gentle and easy death. This term is used for people who want to end their own lives peacefully. There are two types of euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician kills the patient by means of drugs. The other type is passive euthanasia. This process occurs when a physician holds water, food, and drugs from the patient. The argument whether humans should help other human beings die due to sickness, old age, disabilities, and even the lack of motivation to live has been an issue since ancient times. Although, this topic has made headlines in recent years (Pickert). Countries have begun to make it legal, and some states such as Oregon have made it legal to have the “right to die” since 1997 (“State-by-state Guide to Physician Assisted Suicide”). Should euthanasia be legal in the United States as a federal law? Euthanasia is ethically and morally wrong because humans would be playing the role of God, physicians would disown the Hippocratic oath, it is against most religions, and it would lead down a slippery slope to where euthanasia becomes a cheap “treatment” for the sick.

Millions of precious lives have been deliberately taken throughout the world due to the new Euthanasia Law. Euthanasia is the practicing of assisted suicide, due to terminally ill patients or depression. The practicing has just been legalized September 2015, and will be put into effect in California January 1 2016. Although, it is still being argued if adolescents should have the right fro this and if it’s morally correct all together. Euthanasia should be illegal throughout the world, because people shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death.

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

Due to the concern of many incurable patients, it is rarely known that Euthanasia, a termination of one’s life with his/her self-willingness, is a release of permanent pain. On the other hand, it is committed by the doctors. Among Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia, only is Voluntary Euthanasia being universally concerned by human beings. Various fascinating facts, Australia has already approved this act and many people from other countries have also committed Euthanasia. Regarding this topic, people have been in many debates about whether performing Euthanasia. The majority of the debates is talking about in two areas of knowledge, Ethics and the Human Sciences. Some say Euthanasia is still a way of killing and more importantly, most of the doctors cannot manipulate their mental pressure after “murdering” the patients. Unlikely, some believe that Euthanasia helps the patients to quickly end their torture from the incurable illness. Therefore, I will address the concern of Euthanasia in the United States and also propose some possible solutions to the Department of Health in the United States. As a result, I support establishing Euthanasia into the United States’ constitution of the Department of Health.

Different situations call for different measures. The word euthanasia is associated with ending someone’s life whether it be voluntary or no-voluntary. Euthanasia is categized by two aspects the 1st aspect of euthanasia is considered passive, and the 2nd aspect of euthanasia is categized as active euthanasia. This propose of this paper is to get a basic understanding of euthanasia and the different variations of definitions, and to explore whether active euthanasia should be legal or illegal in the United States.

This paper is concerned with the notion of euthanasia, which for the purposes of this paper will be defined as quickening the death of a person who is dying in order to alleviate that person from their suffering (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 340). Euthanasia is usually described as a process that is either active or passive (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 320). Active euthanasia will be defined as killing a person who is dying through a direct act such as administering a lethal injection (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 311). In contrast, passive euthanasia will be defined as allowing a person to die naturally through withholding or removing treatments that would otherwise sustain the life of that person (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 311).

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and