Euthanasia itself means mercy killing and it’s the intentional ending of another’s life; either directly, which is known as active euthanasia, or by stopping medical treatment, known as inactive euthanasia. It can be voluntary, when the patient asks for it, and involuntary, when the patient isn’t able to express his request and the decision is then taken by the person’s doctor and legal representative. It is one of the biggest social, moral and ethical issues in today’s society, and for years it has caused a lot of controversies over whether it can be justified or not. Many believe that life is a “sacred gift from God” so it should be Him who decides when it’s our time to go; while many others argue that for matters that don’t concern anyone
It means that doctor and patient know and intentionally consent to give and receive a dose to end life mainly driven by a terminal and painful illness. The main factor that has driven this debate is that both are considered assisted dying and are an act to take the decision to intentionally end the life of a human being. It has generated moral, ethical (including patient, family and doctors), religious and legal dilemmas since many people see Euthanasia as a suicide masked as a mercy or compassionate death. The main difference is that euthanasia is considered a mercy kill or death because the physician administer a lethal medicine. However, in the case of PAS, the physician provides the dose or prescription for the self-administration by the patient.
Do you assent that people who encounter some fatal diseases and do not want to endure pain can have voluntary euthanasia? Voluntary euthanasia, the practice of a hopelessly ailing and suffering person asking for terminating the life in a relatively rapid and painless manner, has been the most controversial moot point that spawns numerous discussions in the recent few decades. I propose that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized so that anyone who struggles for the desperate disease can have the right of practicing voluntary euthanasia. Every individual has liberty and is an autonomous person with the right to self-sufficiency and independence. The right to choose is underlying and employs to all elements of “human life,” so each individual has the right to elect the circumstance of the own death.
Is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain and suffering? Euthanasia is the termination of a person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering. A person who undergoes euthanasia usually has an incurable condition. There are few forms of euthanasia which includes active, passive, voluntary, involuntary, and indirect euthanasia, plus assisted suicide. In active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death, on the other hand in passive euthanasia they don’t directly take someone’s life but allow it to happen.
Dying with dignity acts across the country go against many peoples’ religious views and also can be seen as going against a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. “It makes sense for anyone to want to end their life free of pain and on the terms they choose but morally, ‘death with dignity’ conflicts with biblical standards and anti-suicide stances” (Lariat). The bible goes against suicide and anti-suicide acts are against death with dignity because it is seen as a way to try to escape the world. Assisted suicide would also change the practice of medicine. “When physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, they swear to not play at God in their practice of medicine” (Lariat).
A large issue in this case was not only that Dr. Kevorkian was assisting people in committing suicide, which is illegal in the state of Michigan, but he was also using doctor issued medicine and practicing without a medicine license. Another significant question in this case is whether Dr. Kevorkian had the right of “playing God” by assisting people in dying when they wanted to instead of letting nature take its course. This last legal issue focuses on finances because should relatives to a terminally ill person have to reduce their quality of life by taking money out of their own pocket to pay for the extremely expensive cost of life support of their loved one if they are in pain and in a vegetative state not really living life? All these legal issues are present everyday with the large number of individuals on life support which affects the loved ones of these ill people, and the government on having to make laws to better
The cancer patient has no desire to continue living, because of the crippling pain. As a medical professional, should he/she be obliged to assist the patient in ending their suffering in the most humane approach in a perfectly legal manner or allow the pain to continue? In one hand, if the oncologist proceeds with the euthanasia, the physician would be breaking their Hippocratic Oath. In the other hand, the physician might face the reality that the patient has to live the remainder of the life suffering, against the wishes. This is only one of an infinite quantity of scenarios that could have been created.
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is the act of permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured patients. This is never suggested by the caretaker rather than requested by the patient or their family. Few areas such as the Netherlands have already legalized this practice. This debate, as split as a fork in the road, is over whether or not this approach should be legalized worldwide on stances regarding religion, ethics, and self choice. I see this as being extremely unethical on both religious and social morality levels.
That is why assisted suicide needs to be made legal in all of the United States. Everyone’s view of euthanasia is different. Some think it is best for what the patients want and give them that, others have their religious values to speak out against assisted death. Religions like Christianity and Catholics believe that assisted suicide violates the sanctity of life. The Mormon communities believe “Euthanasia is condemned.