The Age Should Not Be A Person 's Life

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.

If a child is born with a horrible disease and the only way to survive is to have an operation, which will in a sense allow the child to live, but under poor conditions, the parents have a difficult decision to make. It might be very easy to think about themselves and how raising this child would perhaps be a burden to them or a burden to society. Once again in order for euthanasia to be morally permissible they have to make to decision based on what is good for the child. This is where another crucial point comes into play. Who is to say that even though this child will grow up with severe abnormalities and discomfort that they won't find happiness? "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p.795) As you can see, the decision of ending a person's life is a very delicate and hard decision. It is however, a decision we are only allowed to make if it is passive euthanasia being considered. As of right now, active euthanasia is not permissible. We now need to discuss what would happen if active euthanasia were permissible.

It sad to think that there are people who give such advice to parents of young children. Just because the parent’s happiness is suffering, does not mean that euthanasia is the answer. The rights of the child’s right to live should be considered way before the parent’s “right” to

I think that their definitely needs to be an age limit. I think that also if you have ever had killed somebody or have had some type of criminal crime then you should not be able to trick or treat. Also once you have graduated high school or reach an age 0f 20 that you should not be able to trick or treat. I think that trick or treating is meant for little kids and once you get to a certain age you probably wouldn't trick or treat even if you could.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Euthanasia is the act of killing someone who is very sick, in order to prevent any further suffering. For example, Dr. David Dufor states, “Although they were not terminal, there was still unbearable suffering, (both psychologically) and physically,” (Gross). This shows that although the twins being talked about here weren’t going to die naturally, it was still moral because of the different types of suffering. Furthermore, “ The group argues voluntary euthanasia for people who are terminally ill would increase their quality of life by removing the stress of facing a painful death,” (Preiss). This shows that not only can euthanasia be ethical, but it can also improve quality of life by ending the patient’s pain and suffering. The decision is definitely never easy, but is is the right decision to

According to Rachels (248), a proponent of euthanasia, states the act is justified if death is the only way out of one’s awful pain. On the other hand, Gay Williams (353), an opponent of euthanasia, views it as immoral to take someone’s life before his or her own natural death time reaches. Medically, euthanasia can be acceptable for those patients that are extremely suffering and their doctors have no idea on what to do to help a patient whose condition is only worsening. Often, it is administered on consultation with the family members of the patient in question. However, health practitioners are held within the bounds of professionalism where they are made to understand sanctity of life. Doctors are not supposed to decide the future of

According to the USCCB’s “Assisted Suicide: From Voluntary to Involuntary”, in 2014 in Belgium, restrictions to age limits were removed for euthanasia. This extended this so-called freedom to children of all ages. An infant that was only four days old was euthanized in 1993 for having the birth defect, spina bifida. The physicians proposed this euthanization and completed it with the parents’ consent (USCCB 2017). Aside from the fact that the whole practice of euthanasia is immoral, the infant was unable to consent to the procedure. In general, no procedure should be done without the consent of the patient, let alone, a procedure that promotes the death of the patient. If an arbitrary line is drawn, someone will try to cross it. Once the principle is put into place, it leads down a slippery slope. The case of The Netherlands is evidence that if allowed, doctors will cross the line and take the choice away from the

Of course where this is legalized there still are a few rules. Some of these rules have to do with age and consent. Minors 12 years old up until they’re 16 years old can request euthanasia but will need parental consent. However, at the age of 16 or older, patients can request euthanasia without parental consent, but their parents must be involved. Men and women 18 and older can request euthanasia without any involvement of their parents or

After reading the article, “ Should Terminally Ill Children Have the Right to Ask For Their Own Death?”, children should not have the right to choose their death. One reason is that a child 's brain isn’t much like an adults, their brains aren’t as developed. Therefore, they can’t comprehend death. The article argues, “ Minors may not have the mental capacity or vocabulary to request death”(Trianni). For example, a nurse says , “ I never had a child asking to end his life,” children indeed say , “ It’s really hard’ or “I’m fed up”(Trianni). Meaning, children aren’t tired of living their simply tired of their situation. The article also points out children may be the ones requesting death but ultimately they shouldn 't and won’t be the ones making the decisions. Children shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death date.

At the age of 21 is when the philosopher Aristotle believes is when you finish the seven year stage of youth development this means a lot sense Aristotle did study about human nature. The age 21 makes people feel like they must be more responsible and not make any excuses for what they do and how they react to a situation. Drinking should be kept at the age it's at right now and that is the age of 21 years old there's no perfect age for it expect this. Jobs and renting a car shouldn't be based on age but it should be based around how much experience the individual has on the certain skill. So 21 is the best age when you could make better decision and have an idea of how to become more responsible.

In “We Cannot Accurately Predict the Extent of an Infant's Future Suffering: The Groningen Protocol Is Too Dangerous to Support,” Alexander Kon discusses how the Groningen Protocol is wrong on its assumption on killing infants based on their current medical position because death is unjustifiable in medical settings. Although an adamant supporter of euthanasia, Kon believes that killing newborns is gratuitous. Kon writes “infants cannot express their wishes…or judge what they believe to be in their best interest” (27).

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 is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

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