Euthanasia – PRO
Euthanasia is a highly controversial topic; however, it should not be condemned as a criminal act. Administering Euthanasia without the knowledge and the approval of the dying person would be like killing them. However, if the dying person and their loved ones knows and comes to a consensus, then the person would know that hes going to die and would possibly face and accept death with less fear. A close communion and understanding between the dying person and their loved ones is extremely important, and if they feel Euthanasia is the only option left, then putting an end to the misery would be lot easier; and dying peaceful under the tender affectionate gaze of our loved ones would be the death worthwhile. Living is about quality of life and the ability to have a life. It is not just about breathing and bodily functions.
Another perspective to look at it is, from the day a healthy person has a serious accident. Becoming severely brain damaged, basically a vegetable, unable to move or perform even the minutes of tasks for themselves. Unable to think or speak, they need constant care, and could be thought of as a burden on society. What kind of a quality of life is this If there is absolutely no hope for this person, if several different doctors are in agreement that this person will never get better, that their brain function is nonexistent and they have been damaged beyond repair, shouldnt this person be allowed to die, if the family is in agreement that euthanasia is the best option Euthanasia is much more than ethical. It is a basic human right, and should be recognised as such. “If people have the right to choose how to live, why should they not also have the freedom to choose how to die???(Beauchamp, 82).
Euthanasia is not an alternative to suicide. People going through emotional, financial or other problems are committing suicide. Death is final and there is no way to change your mind. There have been many reasons why people would want to commit suicide but those reasons fade with time. Once a person is dead there is no chance for a new beginning with better results in the future. ???We should deny a dying individual access to euthanasia when they have only pain to expect in the future.??? (Beauchamp, 10). The point is for people contemplating suicide is because there is a future.
Think about it for a moment. What if it was you Would you want your life support turned off Do you want to be allowed to die with your dignity intact, having made the decision to speed up the inevitable Or would you rather have death be a prolonged journey for you No matter how heroic the measures are to keep an elderly or terminally ill person alive, the final days are usually nothing but constant pain or unconsciousness until the inevitable end. Euthanasia is legal in some countries today, hospices knows it happens unofficially every day. A slightly heavier dose of painkiller drug can mean the difference between life and death for a fragile patient. However, we believe it should be our legal and ethical right to decide for ourselves when to accept the impossible end of life.
In the modern world of advanced medical treatment, where quantity of life is common, but quality of life is not guaranteed. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is the humane alternative to a life no longer worth living. There are a multitude of arguments against euthanasia, pro-euthanasia. Most would argue that letting someone die is the act of letting nature take its course. One such argument is that euthanasia would not only be for people who are terminally ill, which suggests that various definitions of “terminal” will be employed to justify killing as many people as possible. Another, is that euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, which suggests that doctors will be encouraged to talk patients into choosing death over treatment in non terminal cases. ??? Is it morally right to end our own lives, or ask someone to help us end our own lives??? (Velleman, 9). A third argument is that euthanasia will become non-voluntary, which suggests that patients may feel pressured into choosing euthanasia by outside influences such as financial cost and social acceptance of suicide. Finally, opponents argue that euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life, which suggests that, euthanasia is wrong by virtue of consensus, because most of the world has rejected it throughout history.
The importance of having a different distinction between letting die and active euthanasia is that the doctor, who performs euthanasia, would have written consent from the person who wishes to be left to die with no resuscitation, to make the person breath again, after they have almost died. Euthanasia, however, is done in order to help a person, or bring about some benefit that they feel is necessary. If we believe that letting someone die because they refuse treatment is moral and doesnt violate someones rights, then how can we say that active euthanasia violates that same persons rights. ???Its quite beneficial to allow people to utilize euthanasia when its better for all parties involved.??? (Velleman, 12). Both of these decisions are made with the same goal in mind. They are active decisions to not continue on in life and just because the means are different, the result is the same.
When translated from the Greek, Euthanasia leaves us with a “good death”. On the surface it appears to be a reasonable and rational desire. Euthanasia has in more modern times become generally accepted as the purposeful ending of the life of another at that persons request. It is also generally accepted such death will be merciful and painless. ???The analogy is dramatic, but people forget that some illnesses are horrible.??? (La Follet, 2). Euthanasia is by no means a modern concept. Dig around in any culture and you will find references to such practices. Regardless of ancient vs. modern the debate hasnt evolved much and in some cases neither have the practices. In the 30s the Germans used Euthanasia as a synonym for genocide. Supporting euthanasia does not mean someone supports rounding up old people and injecting them. Legalizing euthanasia does not make that a risk because people would not allow it. Even if euthanasia were banned to try and avoid potential problems, that isnt a realistic manner of protecting people. The legal system operates in such a way that politicians could enable euthanasia and sentence the elderly to death at the same time. Depriving an elderly man the right to avoid an agonizing death does nothing to protect anyone else.
Additionally, people seem to be under the impression that euthanasia will be used against the will of patients. This is not true at all in cases of physician assisted suicide, which is a form of euthanasia. There are people who want to die, and there family may want them to stay around. However, that is incredibly selfish as it pretends the suffering of a loved one isnt as important as their happiness. Furthermore, its a natural instinct to want to protect a loved one, but watching someone slowly fade away simply delays the inevitable sadness that comes with death. Attached to that, you gain memories of them as sickly and miserable that you would have much rather not had, in many cases.