Should Terminally Ill Children Have The Right To Determine Euthanasia?

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.

Thesis Statement: Although people may be suffering and on the verge of death, assisted suicide should be illegal because there are many options to look upon then just looking at death.

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.

Assisted suicide is an ethical topic that has sparked up many controversies. Individuals have heated disputes on whether or not patients who are suffering should have the right to die. Some worry that legalizing euthanasia is irrational and would violate some religions, while others argue that it provides a peaceful death towards terminally ill patients who are suffering from pain. Physician-assisted suicide is a contentious matter, in which there are many positive and negative aspects, whether or not it should be committed is a complex decision.

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.

Assisted suicide is a controversial and often misunderstood topic that has recently raised the attention of the nation. Assisted suicide or physician assisted suicide (PAS) is not only an emotionally trying matter but also ethically challenging to some. Those who are against this act believe that it is unethical to end a life before the intended time. Those in favor believe that it is a human right for patients that have terminal illnesses to have a choice in the way that they die. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized for mentally competent adults because it is a human right, is more financially responsible and a considerate reply to the misery of

Euthanasia, formally known as mercy killing, is the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. In terms of a physician's actions, it can be passive in that a physician plays no direct role in the death of the person or it can be active in that the physician does something directly to cause the death (Yount, 2002). Euthanasia may also be formed into three types of act, which are voluntary, involuntary, and nonvoluntary. Voluntary involves killing the patient at his or her request. Involuntary occurs when the patient does not give consent, or refuses. Nonvoluntary is where the patient is not able to make the decision about their medical treatment so it is up to a third

The right to die with dignity should be every person’s legal right in times when medical treatment does nothing but pro-long an individual’s suffering and ultimately fail to save their lives. There are many moral and ethical reasons why physician assisted suicide should be legalized however, there is also opposition to euthanasia.

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.

Firstly, one of the main arguments for euthanasia is autonomy and patients’ rights to make their own decisions.

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.

Assisted suicide, the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease assisted by the consumption of lethal drugs provided by a doctor, has been practiced for several decades and perhaps was very prominent in its earliest stages until now—individuals are against assisted suicide. According to the Webster Dictionary (2016), “euthanasia is the act or practice of causing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy also known as mercy killing.” Euthanasia has created a debate over the past couple of years causing issue in various of the fifty states in America as to whether it should be legal for nurses to assist patients in an early death. Since the Crimean War it has been nurse 's duty to treat patients back to health, make them feel comfortable, and make their last moments memorable. As true as this may be, the thought of euthanasia is questioned as to whether or not it should be considered acceptable because it is not a natural cause of death but it is able to stop the drastic pain of many ill Americans. Even though 1/10 of the states in America has made this mercy killing legal there is still a debate as to whether or not others should follow behind and why. The states that have passed the law of physician-assisted suicide are Washington, Oregon, California and Vermont and they have also made it clear that there are guidelines and requirements that must be fulfilled to go through with this

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.

An adult can become very sick throughout their life, and many things could happen to them along the way. Not only the terminally ill but what about those who get hurt or become disabled? Around the world car accidents or just any kind of accidents happen everyday, some of the people that leave from these accidents alive are in pain or there is a machine keeping them alive. If someone gets hurt and there is no way for the doctors to fix it, they should not have to sit there everyday wishing that their life could just end when they know no one can help.