Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Euthanasia or mercy killing as it is informally referred is the act of ending a person life if it is deemed to be the only way to help a person get out of their suffering. Mostly euthanasia is practiced on patients who are suffering from terminal illness are experiencing severe pain. Therefore, assisted death seems to be the only way to help the patient come out of their suffering. There are two types of euthanasia.

Active euthanasia or voluntary mercy killing that entails assisting the terminally ill patient to end his/her intractable pain through death. The consent of the patient has to be sought. The other method is involuntary mercy killing which is practiced without the patients consent as the patient may not be in position to do so such as when in a coma.

Whether voluntary or involuntary, mercy killing is a topic that has generated heated debate not only among professionals, but also the general public and laws makers. The physicians should do everything possible to save the lives of their patients, but in extreme situations euthanasia should be considered as an appropriate alternative to save such patients from excruciating pains.

Both schools of thought focus on the rights of the patient. They claim that a patient has a right to demand or refuse any form of medication that will help in overcoming their suffering. If a doctor continues to give or deny treatment to a patient against the patients will, that can be considered as violating he patient’s rights.

Those who oppose legalizing euthanasia are informed by what has happened in Holland. Active euthanasia is legal in this country. Legalizing active euthanasia can easily pave way to also legalizing involuntary euthanasia (Life Circle Books para 9). They claim that if law makers do legalize active mercy killing, it soon “becomes a responsibility and obligation of the medical practitioners” (Life Circle Books para 13).

This is such a dangerous path as it is potentially riddled with loopholes for abuse. Its consequences are beyond comprehension. Most people could abuse it for their own personal gain. Consider a person who is intends to inherit massive estate from a terminally ill guardian. This person can nudge the guardian toward assisted death. If this is the case, how many more deaths would occur in world?

This would also mean that people who are of unsound mind and those struggling with severe depression can ask to be put out of their misery by assisted death. This would also take the death rates to high levels. Most importantly, many terminally ill patients who are not willing to die would develop an immense distrust toward doctors, who would have the right to end therefore lives if it seems impossible for them to recover.

It would also put onto jeopardy live of millions of the elderly citizens who are a burden both economically and otherwise to their families. In this case therefore euthanasia becomes not only illegal, but unethical. Its consequences are too disastrous to imagine. Every alternative to mercy killing such administering pain killers should be explored until a person either improves or dies naturally (Life Circle Books para 25).

However, there are those who feel that euthanasia needs to be re-thought and debated afresh so that law makers can find ways of stipulating statutes that protects both the patients and the doctors who practice it. They argue that each person has a right to determine the direction of their lives. Lives of individuals are their own responsibilities (Kingsbury para 2).

About 80% of adult Americans would support this move as they feel that if a person is terminally ill and the condition cannot be reversed by any medical intervention, slow and painful death is the consequence. No one wants a slow and painful death. People should therefore be assisted to end their lives quickly thus avoid prolonging the process of death (Kingsbury para 3).

While opponents of this arguer that its consequences are beyond repair and that it is subject to abuse, research proves otherwise. Their decision is only informed by the fear of the unknown. In Oregon where it is legal, the law has proved very successful and only very few instances of abuse have been reported.

Oregon euthanasia laws requires that a person must be 18 years and over, of sound mind and ascertained by at least three medical doctors that death is the only end of suffering. The doctor only prescribes the drugs but cannot administer it. It’s the patient who tales the drug voluntary without any help from the doctor.

The proponents argue that those people who are under intractable and intense suffering should be assisted to die in dignity, without pain.

In conclusion, the patient’s right to life must be protected. There are fundamental issues that need to be considered when deciding if to legalize euthanasia or not. Such issues include the consideration of the patient’s wish. However, euthanasia should not be taken as the easy way out.

All possible means to sustain a person’s life should be explored. Lastly, there is a question that still lingers in mind of many. How is the consents and the wish of a patient who is in deep coma ascertained?

Works Cited

Kingsbury, Kathleen. “A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia.” Time Magazine. Posted, 16, May 2008. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1807401,00.html

Life Circle Books. If Mercy Killing Becomes Legal. New York: Lewistown. n.d. Retrieved from http://www.euthanasia.com/mercy.html

Click Here To Order Now!

Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)