Should Euthanasia Be Legalized?

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”).

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 suicide committed with the aid of another person, or physicians. It is only legal in four states in the U.S., where physicians are allowed to prescribe medication to hasten death. Ending suffering through euthanasia is a moral issue that has caused many controversies.

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 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

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

Though assisted suicide is a humane way to end human suffering, it is still illegal in most US states (ProQuest Staff). Assisted suicide has created many ripples and tears in state governments all over the united states. Oregon legislature began to take action in passing a law called measure 16 or “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act” to make assisted suicide legal in the late 90’s (ProQuest Staff). After Oregon had passed the laws the US government got involved issuing a temporary restraining order and an injunction barring the state from putting Measure 16 into effect (ProQuest Staff). Two years later Oregon residents gain the right to end their lives if they have a terminal illness (ProQuest Staff). Oregon’s law on assisted suicide is there but is very precise as to when and how one can end their life. Patients wanting to obtain a lethal prescription must first, have a serious and incurable illness, and secondly requests for lethal medication must be made no more than six months from death (Wente). After Oregon complications with passing their Death with Dignity Act other states soon began to follow creating their own laws on assisted suicide. The second state in the US to pass these laws was Washington, they passed their version of the act in 2008. After Washington, Montana soon followed in 2010 becoming the third state to pass legislature approving assisted suicide.

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.

Helping someone end their suffering is not a crime. It is currently not considered a crime in 3 states: Oregon, Washington and Vermont. So why is it illegal in most states? Assisted suicide is not as harsh and cruel as it sounds like. There are regulations that need to be followed and there is a long tough process before you make your final decision. Assisted suicide needs to become legal in more states.

Could you imagine seeing a family member suffering from a disease but not being able to do anything because assisted suicide is illegal in 44 states? Currently, the only legislation allowing assisted suicide is Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, which states that physicians can assist terminally ill patients to end their own lives by writing prescriptions for lethal doses of medication.(Issit, Newton 1) People have the right to choose how they want to die.

“With the right safeguards in place assisted suicide can help terminally ill patients a semblance over their lives as disease, disability, medical machine tries to wrest them away from them” (www.nytimes.com). In other words, assisted suicide should be legal overall. Assisted suicide is an act of taking someone’s life on their own terms. So far, the right of passage is legal in six states which are Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Washington, California, and Montana. The death laws are based off of Death with Dignity Act Organization, which help provide the proper safeguards to perform the act. In general, the act of assisted suicide should be legal.

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.

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.