Legalizing active euthanasia
Give an argument for legalizing active euthanasia and an argument against it
Euthanasia is originated from a Greek word which means “good death”.Active euthanasia is a type of suicide being assisted by any medical professional or any other person that may deliberately do something to let the person die like giving an overdose of pain killers. Some people are of the opinion that it is sometimes acceptable morally to withhold the medical treatment of a person and allow to die, but on the other side killing a patient is not acceptable. But some people are of the opinion that this moral distinction is totally nonsense because if giving a patient an overdose or stopping the treatment will be considered as a deliberate act of killing someone (Spranzi). For example, if a patient is having lung cancer and is on respiratory machine, a doctor may switch off the machine intentionally to withhold the treatment, then the patient will die of lung cancer, but the reason behind is the switching off of the respiratory machine which is a deliberate act.
As by an act of June 2016, euthanasia has been legalized in many countries including U.S, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Colombia, and Japan. This active euthanasia has been legalized in some countries only, but many countries and states have been putting laws and various safeguards to prevent this nonsense act of abuse. (Where did you find this information – it must be stated to avoid plagiarism?)Supporters of euthanasia have the perspective that controlled and restricted assisted suicides are better than the secret activities being unregulated which include the relief from painful suffering, patient’s right to be free from his condition, and individual autonomy. (Who said so – where did you find this – it must be cited?)They think that it is a self-determination of whether to live or die.
Most importantly, politicians and the public at large support euthanasia and they supported legalizing active euthanasia. To keep the patient in a painful situation and there are no chances of recovery, sometimes the patient or his/her family may request a doctor to end the life by assisted suicide measures. Some people think that it improves the quality of life as if the patient knows when he is going to die then he may lead a happy and tension free life feeling the agony and fear of death. Although, it is not logical but legalized, euthanasia has not targeted the vulnerable, but it is helping the poor and old people to die at the time of their own choice to get relief from burdens of life (M.). (Not a MLA approved citation) Supporters are of the opinion that everyone has a right to live and die on his own conditions, but this brings the morality issue for the physicians taking an oath to protect and save lives of patients at any cost. (What oath – who said so – where did you find this – it must be cited?)
However, the opponents of legalizing euthanasia suggested that it is a morality issue for physicians and medical professionals to participate in the assisted suicide act. If a physician will do so, then it will breach his moral agreement to heal and relieve the patients from diseases and the patient’s trust would also be shaken. This would create a profound change in the social values because it is not worth the risk to kill a patent on the name of assisted suicide (Bachman, et al.). If the patient dies, we will never know if there could be chances of recovery or not.
They are also anti-euthanasia supporters because they think that life is meant to be preserved and protected from various killing measures and this practice is immoral and against the social values. It can be a means of containing the healthcare costs as the medicine for assisted suicide costs only some dollars, but the treatment of the patient may range from many thousand of dollars so the cost can be contained. If active euthanasia would be legalized then there would be unnecessary suicides, but the depressed and dependent people who wanted to take their life and this would be immoral and against the life protection rule (Emanuel).
Although media has been portraying legalized active euthanasia as a control measure and portraying that someone is helpingothers in killing themselves in pain free manner like the death with dignity, but this has been portraying a legitimate message to the public that suicide is the ultimate solution to anyone’s problems of life and it will lead the society towards a suicide contagion which would be disastrous for any society. People may say that they have right to take life under certain circumstances, but they have not identified what would be the conditions and how it will impact the quality of life of the family members.(Who said so – where did you find this – it must be cited?) I strongly condemn the countries that are supporting and legalizing active euthanasia as a measure to end miserable life, but if it would be legal then as certain conditions must also be associated to it including who can commit it, under what circumstances, and what will be security for the family members against this death?.