Should Euthanasia Be Legal?

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

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 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.

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.

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.

In this article, Perry reviews the advantages of enforcing euthanasia with the injured military personnel during the war. The author was stored information from former troops, who have experienced the war. This information is mostly the story of the soldiers who was wounded torture in the war, and the fellow soldiers decided to assassinate that soldier, who then lost the pain. His research focuses on the thoughts of the former military personnel about mercy killings. The article is useful to my research topic, as Perry suggests that there are numerous reasons for enforcing mercy killings to the soldiers with the intractable circumstances. The main limitation of the article is that the research was too narrow because it lacks opinions and aspects

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.

In a sense, euthanasia has been one of the most controversial and debated topics to ever arise in medicine. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional, painless killing by act or omission of a dependent human being suffering from an incurable disease or irreversible coma (King, 2016). Although the practice is still illegal in many areas, it is becoming more accepted, legal, and decriminalized in many parts of the United States. In majority of cases, the termination is carried out at the person's request, but there are times when they may be too ill or not in their right mind, and it is left to close relatives to make the decision. Euthanasia directly affects autonomy, which is a patient's right to make his own decision regarding his own life (Lachman, 2010). It is also important to be able to identify the different types of euthanasia, because it is not as simple as just "terminating a life." It is much more difficult that the previous definitions leads on. It can be done in several different ways, each with their own defining characteristics, and issues can arise from every one of them. Euthanasia, also known as patient assisted suicide or "mercy killing" has many pros, cons, morality concerns, and legal issues that directly impact the future of the practice.

Craig Gannon and Eva Garland, authors of “Legalization of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Professional’s View,” argue the moral and legal rights and wrongs of euthanasia in America and in the United Kingdom. Gannon and Garland explain “Both ‘sides’ have similar aspirations; to respect patients’ wishes and to reduce any suffering.” (131)

In the Oxford English Dictionary, “euthanasia” is defined as “the means of bringing a gentle and easy death” (“euthanasia” def. 2). Today, euthanasia is a method used in the medical field to put an end to a patient’s agony by taking their life for them, making it a very controversial topic. Many people argue that it is morally wrong to take a human life, and others may argue that it is even more wrong to make someone suffer more than they need to. I will argue that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is in fact morally permissible.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are

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

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.