Should Euthanasia Be Legal?

In recent times, there has been much debate about whether or not Euthanasia should be permitted. Voluntary Euthanasia is when terminally ill people wish to have their lives ended with the assistance of medical procedures before nature takes its course. This is because they may be suffering and in great pain, or cannot live a reasonable or comfortable life. Voluntary Euthanasia should be introduced, provided that there are safeguards to stop the system from being misused.

Throughout the twentieth century, major scientific and medical advances have greatly enhanced the life expectancy of the average person. However, there are many instances where doctors can preserve life artificially. When society ponders over the idea of physician-assisted suicide, they most likely feel that the act itself would compare to murdering someone. Who really has the authority to say what is right or wrong when a loved one wants to end their life because of a terminal illness or a severe physical disability? Should Physician-assisted suicide be Legal in California to make it a euthanasia state like Oregon ? In the article titled “Nicest Lawmaker Touts Assisted Suicide,” by Clea Benson published The Bakersfield Californian in 2006, the author presents a Republican lawmaker Patty Berg, who is groom pushing a bill allowing assisted suicide be legal in California. Physician assisted suicide should be allowed to those who are terminally ill with a limited amount of time left to live, and shouldn’t be eligible for people who are young, healthy, or have plenty of time to live.

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

In a momentous decision released February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Physician-assisted suicide will be legal in Canada within 12 months. This deci-sion has caused a myriad of controversy. Opponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that the constitution recognizes the sanctity of life and no one has the right to end the life of another person’s. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that patients who experience constant pain and misery due to health issues must be allowed to have the right to die with dignity of their own choices. This means it is necessary for the government to take measures to protect the right of those people who suffer. Though both arguments offer val-id points, it is absolutely crucial that all human beings should be entitled the essential right to be painlessly and safely relieved of suffering caused by incurable diseases.

When it comes to the topic of, should physician-assisted suicide be legal in every state, most of us will readily agree that it should be up to a terminally ill person to make that decision. Whereas some are convinced that it is inhumane, others maintain that it is a person’s decision to end their own life. I agree that physician-assisted suicide should be legal in every state because in most cases, people that are terminally ill should have the right to end their own life with the assistance of a physician.

Physician-assisted suicide has caused major controversy throughout history in America. There are many opinions about the positives and negatives of this option becoming legal. Right now there are only five states in America where this is legal. The five states are Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, and Vermont. Should doctors be allowed to assist terminally ill patients end their lives?

When society ponders over the idea of physician-assisted suicide, they most likely feel that the act itself would compare to murdering someone. Who really has the authority to say what is right or wrong when a loved one wants to end their life because of a terminal illness or a severe physical disability? President Clinton signed the Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction in 1997, which prohibits the use of federal funding for physician-assisted suicides (The Gale Group, 2002). However, also in 1997, the state of

Having the right to life, also gives one the right to death. Outrageously, physician assisted suicide is illegal in all but five states in the U.S; including California, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont; this law, violating rules of ethics, also defies morals. Some actions in the past, including women not having voting rights, and experimentation on prisoners and the mentally ill, also infringed upon ethics and morale. Women not being permitted to vote before the 19th Amendment--Women’s Suffrage Act--opposed the logic of equality, likewise, experiments on prisoners and the mentally incompetent violated the 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment (“CRS Annotated Constitution”). One cannot help but wonder, will physician assisted suicide be legal in all states, a century from now? Because people in America are given the right to LIFE, liberty, and property, they should also be given the choice of ending their pain more swiftly.

Physician-assisted suicide is the act of aiding an individual end their life by means of a lethal dose of medication prescribed by a physician. The term assisted suicide was first coined after an infamous pathologist named Jack Kevorkian would devise a machine that would aid terminally ill patients end their lives. Dr. Kevorkian would go on to help over one hundred people end their lives, earning him the nickname Dr. Death (“Jack Kevorkian”). Society has come a long way since the invention of the suicide machine. This is a sensitive topic that can be quite personal for many individuals, but nonetheless, is a subject of many heated conversations. Aid in dying has been a topic many have been divided on, but if we can put in place an improved

The debate on legalizing assisted suicide is an issue across the globe. It has brought countries to contemplate on the legalities of the matter in their respective legislative branches of government. Assisted suicide is just simply a matter of assessing one's will to perform such act with the permission of the subject or the patient in such way his will be done. The debate now focuses on either the act shall be legalized or not.

The article “Euthanasia is Not Merciful: There’s Meaning in Life even in the Deepest Pain”, by Mary Ticinovic argues the negativity of euthanizing, and why it should not be legalized. The argument is that agreeing with or legalizing euthanizing will be giving the ok to murder. Mary states, “Favor of suicide goes against the principle that all life is precious”. Some patients whom are suffering for an incurable disease may seek out to be euthanized. Euthanasia currently is illegal in United States, but physician-assisted suicide (PAD) is legal in OR, VT, AND WA. This topic is very controversial.

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.

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Legalizing euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. Modern medicine has brought great benefits to humanity such as prolonging life, but by prolonging life it is also

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.