Euthanasia comes from a Greek word whose approximate English translation is good death. It is our observation that those who espouse “euthanasia” in reality favor an imposed death-not a good death.
Euthanasia is often defined by its supporters as helping an individual who is suffering to die with dignity. It is often considered the merciful thing to do. It is referred to as physician assisted suicide, mercy killing, physician aid in dying, imposed death or other names.
Euthanasia is the killing of people whose lives have value. These people all have immeasurable value because they have been created in the image and likeness of God. Unfortunately, these people, either alone or with the help of their close family and friends, have been convinced that their lives have no meaning and are no longer worth living.
Usually, individuals who have life-threatening illnesses or other life-altering physical ailments are targeted for imposed death. The use of assisted suicide is now being expanded to include many other individuals-people whose lives, in the eyes of society, are not worth living.
Euthanasia is claiming the lives people whose “quality of life” has been judged by others to be worthy only of death-whether they have an illness, a handicap, or severe mental illness.
Should everyone be able to decide for himself when it is their time to go? And when should someone be able to decide for us? That may sound alarmist-but it’s already happening.
Whether or not euthanasia should be legalized is one of the most debated issues in the United States. Euthanasia provides a way for humans in unbearable and incurable situations to be relieved of their pain. In June 1997, the US Supreme Court ruled that there is neither a constitutional right nor a constitutional prohibition to euthanasia. This permitted Oregon to experiment with legalizing it. ...
Legalizing euthanasia would help alleviate suffering of terminally ill patients. It would be inhuman and unfair to make them endure the unbearable pain.
In case of individuals suffering from incurable diseases or in conditions where effective treatment wouldn’t affect their quality of life; they should be given the liberty to choose induced death.
Also, the motive of euthanasia is to “aid-in-dying” painlessly and thus should be considered and accepted by law. Although killing in an attempt to defend oneself is far different from mercy killing, law does find it worth approving.
In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve his suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with agony and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy. Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way to help one die peacefully out of the compromising situation.
Euthanasia should be a natural extension of patient’s rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death for him. Maintaining life support systems against the patient’s wish is considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy. If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable anguish? Isn’t the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic?
Family heirs who would misuse the euthanasia rights for wealth inheritance does not hold true. The reason being even in the absence of legalized mercy killing, the relatives can withdraw the life support systems that could lead to the early death of the said individual. This can be considered as passive involuntary euthanasia. Here they aren’t actively causing the death, but passively waiting for it without the patient’s consent.
It can be inferred that though euthanasia is banned worldwide, passive euthanasia has always been out there which can also be called as passive killing and moreover law doesn’t prohibit it. Disrespect and overuse of (passive) euthanasia has always existed and will be practiced by surrogates with false motives. These are the ones who don’t need a law to decide for one’s life. Present legal restrictions leaves both the incurable patients as well as pro euthanasia activists helpless who approve euthanasia as good will gesture for patient’s dignity.
A Personal Look at Euthanasia Recent debates over active euthanasia, 'killing' a terminally ill patient, in Holland, has raised the question whether euthanasia is immoral or a simple human right. Doctors seem to have no doubt. They made an oath. The definition of Euthanasia depends on whether it is active or passive. Active Euthanasia is only allowed in Holland, and it means that the doctor takes ...
Health care cost is and will always be a concern for the family irrespective of euthanasia being legalized.
Cons of Euthanasia – Reasons Against Euthanasia
mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law. It’s a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.
human life deserves exceptional security and protection. Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life. Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.
Family members influencing the patient’s decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue. There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.
Even doctors cannot predict firmly about period of death and whether there is a possibility of remission or recovery with other advanced treatments. So, implementing euthanasia would mean many unlawful deaths that could have well survived later. Legalizing euthanasia would be like empowering law abusers and increasing distrust of patients towards doctors.
Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society. Would mercy killing transform itself from the “right to die” to “right to kill”?
Apart from the above reasons, there are some aspects where there is a greater possibility of euthanasia being mishandled.
... individual, and the family, through financial and emotional anguish? One problem many of the opponents of euthanasia have with such mercy killing is that ... is "the same as killing the patient, (http://www.ieatf.org). In addition, keeping a deathly ill relative or friend on life support can make the ...
How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn’t agree?