Global Tendency for Legalizing Euthanasia

Do you think Euthanasia should be legalize ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
#1
Introduction

It is always helpful, when discussing euthanasia, to begin by looking at the meaning of the term, as definitions vary widely. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek terms eu meaning "good" and thanatos meaning "death." A "good death" would be one that occurs without pain and distress. Euthanasia is being applied to those who suffers the most and cannot be cured. Those whose lives are considered unworthy to be continued so we terminate their lives at their request out of feeling of mercy. There are different types of euthanasia which are 1.Voluntary euthanasia which occurs at the explicit request of a patient, in some countries voluntary euthanasia is considering homicide. 2. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person is unable to give his or her consent to the procedure. There are so many endless arguments about legalizing euthanasia, however, the tendency in the world today is to legalize euthanasia, and already several countries are considering the passing of legal bills to make euthanasia legal. I have represented three arguments about legalizing euthanasia in almost every country, which are: euthanasia in our modern time is seen as a merciful solution, not as a crime, and it is justified by human feelings and understanding, euthanasia should be legalized because this is the only way to regulate a concept that is practiced all over the world anyway, euthanasia has deep roots as it has been practiced by human civilizations.

Argument I

Euthanasia in our modern time is seen as a merciful solution, not as a crime, and it is justified by human feelings and understanding. However, some argue that it is a crime because it involves taking away the life of a human being, which no one has the right to take away. On the other hand, it is not just putting an end to a life, because it has social, religious, and human views that support it. Euthanasia is defined as mercy killing, that is, killing a human being to release him or her from the suffering of pain or disease (Wasmuth 711).

This definition of euthanasia is rejected on the basis that human beings do not have the right to end their own lives. Euthanasia is defined as one ending his own life or having someone do it on his or her behalf if the person is unable to carry out the decision. Similarly, suicide is the ending of one’s life at one’s will. Killing oneself is equivalent to suicide which is considered to be a sin according to religion. Even man-made laws in modern times consider suicide attempts as felonies for which a person is punished by law (IAETF 2).

Euthanasia and suicide cannot be treated in the same manner because of the moral differences between them. A suicide is a situation where a person ends his own life because he is afraid of or unable to face his own responsibilities and problems in life. On the other hand, euthanasia involves the ending of a life because the patient has no hope or solution, and either has to wait for death while suffering all kinds of pain, or have his life ended in order to end his own pain as well as the pain of those who are around him. It is for this reason that euthanasia and suicide cannot be treated in a similar manner, and the argument that is based on making them morally equal is completely rejected (IAETF 2).

Argument II

Euthanasia should be legalized because it is happening anyway. All over the world, thousands of doctors practically end the lives of patients who are terminally ill and hopelessly suffering. These doctors know very well that all medical options have been used and that there is no hope for the patient. They also take the step to end the lives of their patients according to a request made by the patient himself, or by relatives if the patient is completely incapacitated and can never make a decision again. This specifically applies to patients who are in permanent comas (Associated Press 1).

Those who oppose euthanasia argue that doctor-assisted mercy killing is a crime for which doctors should be punished. These doctors take an oath when they graduate that they will do their best in order to elongate the lives of their patients and to relieve them of their pain. Their mission, therefore, is to keep their patients alive, not to have their lives terminated with the use of medicine. If doctors are to be legally capable of assisting their patients in euthanasia, then this will give many the opportunities to get rid of their rich relatives who are normal patients in hospital, with the assistance of doctors who will claim that they were assisting in the ending of hopeless pain. In other words, laws that legalize euthanasia will become death licenses in the hands of doctors who can easily abuse this situation for their own benefits as well as for the benefit of the relatives of their patients (IAETF 3).

The argument that doctors should be treated and tried as criminals for assisting in the termination of the lives of patients who are terminally and hopelessly ill and suffering is absurd. Thousands of doctors involve in such a practice all over the world, even in countries where the law prohibits such a practice. These doctors assist in the death of their patients out of mercy, not out of financial use. In fact, doctors have more to gain if they keep their patients alive, since they will be charging them medical bills. Although some doctors may have indeed violated the law in conspiracy of relatives who benefit from the death of patients, these remain very exceptional cases that can be monitored by the medical systems through autopsies. Moreover, when a doctor assists in the death of his terminally ill and suffering patient, he is not violating his oath as a doctor, since he is relieving his patients from pain in the only possible way that is available (Associated Press 2).



Argument III

Euthanasia is the development of a long history of moral struggle, especially in civilizations that have long contemplated the meaning and value of life. It was known in ancient times, especially among the Greeks and Romans, and it was practiced by other civilizations as a moral solution for those who are seeking final relief. Euthanasia was also considered as an acceptable solution because ancient societies were understanding about the fact that a terminally ill person who has no relief or hope in life eventually becomes a big burden for his family and society (Wasmuth 712).

Opposition to Euthanasia is based on the argument that euthanasia was predominant among barbarian people. As Christianity became dominant in Europe, euthanasia was considered a crime of murder if some kills another to relieve him or her of pain, and a suicide if the patient chose to kill himself or herself. Both suicide and euthanasia are condemned in Christianity, especially by Catholics. Moreover, euthanasia was used by the ruthless and inhuman Nazi regime in Germany and it was applied systematically by the state in order to exterminate individuals who became a burden on the state (Wasmuth 711).

It may be true that Nazi Germany applied euthanasia as a solution, but so did most other ancient civilizations. Moreover, Christianity permits euthanasia under one condition only, when the life of patient cannot be sustained except by extremely extraordinary methods. The fact that a person has the right to relieve himself of being a burden on his family and society because his ill is terminally fatal and its pain is unbearable is still applicable today, especially that modernity has not solved the same problems that persisted in ancient times such as poverty, the lack of resources, and the fact that people hate to live under unbearable and permanent conditions of pain and suffering (Wasmuth 712).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over euthanasia will continue, and whether legal systems worldwide will eventually legalize it or not, there will be millions of supporters on both sides. If this proves anything, it shows that the decision whether euthanasia is acceptable or not remains a personal decision that only the patient in the first place and his family in the second place can decide. Apart from this, any intervention to prevent euthanasia or make it appear illegal is actually an unacceptable interference with the right of the individual to choose for himself whether he should continue to bear unbearable pain and suffering forever. Any argument or debate on euthanasia can last forever, but only those who are facing such situations where pain is eating them alive every day, or those who are watching family members suffer for no reason all the time will understand why euthanasia should be legalized.

Work Cited

Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription Medicine: The Goodness of Planned Death.

New York: N.Y. Prometheus Books, 1991.

Keown, John. Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public policy: an argument against legalization.

UK: Cambridge UP, 2002.

Bowie, Robert. Ethical Studies. Spain: Madrid, 2001.

M. Gorsuch, Neil. The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.

Princeton: Princeton UP,2006. 22-28

Devettere, Raymond J. Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts.

Washington, D.C: Georgetown UP, 2010.158.

Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Euthanasia: the Moral Issues.

New York: N.Y. Prometheus, 1989.

Gavan, Seamus. Euthanasia: The Debate Over the Right to Die. New York: N.Y.

The Rosen Publishing Grouping, Inc. 2000.

Tulloch, Gail. Euthanasia, Choice and Death. Edinburg: Edinburg UP, 2005.

Browning, Christopher R. The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish

Policy. London : Cambridge UP, 2004.


 
#2
Hi my dear readers,

Four years ago I did a research on Euthanasia , this is it. I would be delighted if u comment on it n give me your opinion about it.
 

Marcos

New Member
#3
Hi my dear readers,

Four years ago I did a research on Euthanasia , this is it. I would be delighted if u comment on it n give me your opinion about it.
Excellent job, Karima!

I'm in favor of Euthanasia too, though, on the other hand, that's a really hard and painful decision to make. On one side are the relatives wanting their beloved to live at any costs; on the other, the dying one suffering and longing for any ways that could release them from that critical situation...
The bad thing is that I could easily change my mind if the power of putting an end on the life of a beloved one of mine was in my own hands... :(
For us to think about... :/
 

Tina

Active Member
#4
Good work, Karima! I appreciate that... this topic is one of the most difficult topics ever to discuss, I always used to try to avoid from having any direct position about it... fortunately the only case I have come up with it is just the one from my favourite movie "Me Before You" and I all the time cry on that movie. but I have no any direct position about euthanasia... anyway as I already told you , I rated against legalizing it above... if you just ask me "yes or no" - my answer would be "No"! but it depends on many things... for example the state of ill person.. when a person is not into a coma, and can decide themselves, then I disagree that decision.,, but maybe I have some religious influence too, because I know that as a birth of a human is not depended on themselves, the same with death... we must not define our death. as I know that nothing happens to us, it happens for us in life.. and that suffering and pain is the same trial (I couldnot find another proper word) as the rest, happening in our life... but I have another opinion when a person is so much ill, or being into a coma, that they cannot decide themselves, if it is so much hopeless case, that one's life - better to say just one's breathing is depended only on the newest medical technologies, then I am not that directly against it... but it must be the most hopeless case you know... let's say with another words, if one's breathing is occuring by just the newest medical achievements, and depended on it, then we even cannot say that the person would be alive without all those technologies..... and then such decision might be accepted. ..
I hope I haven't made you confused with my English :) really hope that you got my opinion :)
 
Top