Should Euthanasia Be Legalized?

Terminally illness is any disease that curtails life even for a day. Once euthanasia is socially acceptable and legalised it would widen the practice to any medical condition, not just for terminal illness, we will consider euthanasia as a treatment option. Dr Gunning states: ‘once you accept killing as a solution for a single problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a solution.’ Dutch doctors have been killing terminally ill, to killing chronically ill, killing physical disease to killing mentally distressed, who has no physical illness, to killing newborn babies just because they have birth defects. The experience of Netherlands and Belgium in legalising, points the fact that once legalised it cannot be effectively controlled.

If patients are deemed fit to undergo euthanasia, careless mistakes and corruption would not occur. That’s how medical practices should be. Paul J. van der Wal et al. concluded increased frequency of consultations and better documentation can concur better decision making. If an effective method is created to regulate and create unambiguous terms, more suffering patients will receive the ability to choose a physician-assisted suicide. In the end, the patient will have had the choice to cease their life in their own terms. Liz McCloskey in Maintaining distinctions: assisted suicide erases them, declared that euthanasia gives patients a sense of authority. In this type of occurrence, a patient should be given total authority if they have a sturdy

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Because the individual circumstances regarding the judgment of patients’ conditions and the implementation of assisted suicide can vary quite profoundly, a policy solution to the regulation of these practices must be flexible and capable of reacting appropriately and adjustably in the assessment of each individual case. The way the Dutch have handled the variance of these cases may provide the United States with a practical model to follow for a future system of conduct since they have “left as much room as possible for medical professionals to apply the norms of medical ethics and the medical standard to unique situations” (Griffiths 265). Additionally, the openness of the Dutch situation concerning the practices of PAS and euthanasia has helped foster public confidence in what doctors are doing an how authorities are handling it (Griffiths 269). It would jeopardize patients’ autonomy, the handling of palliative care, the basis of medical ethics and our society’s value for life and transparency if criminalized, unregulated and secretive practices of PAS and euthanasia were to continue. Therefore, legalization and open regulation must be seriously considered as possible policy

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.

Imagine yourself suffering from a terminal illness and going through unimaginable pain but you're able to stop it, that is if it were legal.The solution is euthanasia, euthanasia is Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is only legal in 6 states. Even then the patients must be terminally ill and have 6 months left to live and in one state its required for a court to approve of it first. The question is should it be allowed in more states with less strict laws? Euthanasia should be allowed in more states because it allows many patients to not having to go through all the pain and suffering for several months. As of now, 55% of terminally ill patients die in pain. With the help of euthanasia, that number could drastically drop. Allowing people

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.