Legalization of euthanasia

Euthanasia and Its Perceptions

Euthanasia is commonly referred to as mercy killing or physician-assisted suicide by certain individuals. It is a condition in which a deliberate act of terminating someone’s life is performed in order to rid them of serious pain. Euthanasia may be performed by removing a patient’s lifelong life support pump. Euthanasia is carried out in the same way as euthanasia is carried out when an animal is terminally ill (Lewis 200). Typically, the decision is done when the victim’s life is in danger and the possibility of taking it away seems preferable. Voluntary euthanasia is a kind of euthanasia that is conducted with consent. It is one of the most researched topics and debated. Anyone should be a candidate for voluntary euthanasia because most of the time it is someone’s call. Different societies of the world have perceived Euthanasia in varied ways. Whereas some countries are against the practice, there exist others that have permitted it (Ramsay 1445). Some of the nations that have legalized Euthanasia include Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, the state of Oregon and Washington (USA). Therefore, Euthanasia is perceived differently in different places of the world.

Thesis Statement

Voluntary euthanasia should be legalized so people with a terminal illness would have an opportunity to die on their terms.

Reasons for Legalized Voluntary Euthanasia

There are various reasons why Euthanasia should be legalized. Firstly, the legal issues form the primary reasons against euthanasia. The major legal considerations that affect euthanasia include legal principles and medical ethics. The legal issue says, a human being’s right to live includes living with dignity. Having human dignity entails a right to necessities of life and carrying out certain activities. A human being has a right to express human self and for this reason, if people call for euthanasia is an expression of themselves. They feel like they can do no more and their life should just end to relieve them from the torture of the disease.

The legal considerations clarify that every human being should lead a quality life and that anything should be done to refuse bad or low-quality life. Therefore, the legal aspects give people right to do anything with their lives if it affects their quality life (Boudreau 80). Thus, Euthanasia should be permitted to allow people to do anything with their lives as avoid a life without dignity.

Medical ethics is another legal issue that acts as an obstacle to voluntary euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath which says (not harm patients), has made physicians fear to carry out this act. If a doctor allows a patient to go through the excess pain that cannot be tolerated is the same as subjecting the patient to harm. Diseases are torturing terminally ill patients. Just like cancer an operation is carried out to remove it, a physician should let the patient rest other than waste time and resources. The well-being of a patient’s life is the main concern of a doctor, and this can include taking it or preserving it. The physicians misinterpret this Oath and end up not assisting their patients. It very costly for a patient to move from country to another so and yet what the patient is going for could be performed in their state.

Economic Benefits of Euthanasia

Secondly, Euthanasia is economical and saves finances and other resources. A lot of money is used for terminally ill patients. It is not only the government that loses money but also the families of the patients (Lewis 2011). Money that is used for health care services in different countries is limited, and every citizen wants that money to be beneficial to them. They want to have quality health care services provided to them. Instead of wasting lots of money on an individual who will not get better and they are ready to die, euthanasia should be administered. Therefore, embracing Euthanasia is likely to save both the financial and other resources which will, in turn, be allocated to handle other essential aspects of the nation.

Families of patients that are seriously ill or have incurable diseases sell their assets and even stay in debts with the hope that their loved one will come back to them alive and healthy again. The physicians and doctors should give these families peace and spare them from the emotional torture by telling them the truth and inducing euthanasia to these patients. For example, if a person has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the doctors know there is no recovery for that patient they should conduct euthanasia than let the family stay a miserable life of poverty after the patient is gone (Pope 2008). Education plans for other family members should not be canceled because of one person who will die after a short period.

Doctors that offer services and beds available for patients are limited. Practicing euthanasia on those patients who are willing to die gives space for other patients with curable diseases. Since there are limited doctors, those additional patients will be attended to entirely because they will have time. Those patients that are terminally ill keep doctors on toes because they have to be frequently checked. Euthanasia should be conducted on terminally ill patients to give others a chance to be admitted and treated. The approach brings about a severe escape from the avoidable costs, which saves resources.

Preservation of Self-Hood and Human Dignity

Thirdly, the practice of euthanasia protects the self-hood and the human dignity. There is something wrong with our society because the essence of human life is to live a dignified life. If the society does not allow euthanasia, this makes a person live in intolerable pain and humiliation. If someone has decided to end their life that wish should be granted than to let their suffering prolong. Being self-determine is one of the elements that make us human (Downie 965). Personalities of human life grow when they have experienced, and they can make choices if this does not happen then the sense of self is gone, and one has no reason to continue with life.

However, most societies of the world have failed to offer people their choice of self-hood and a life of dignity. For example, there are various cases where people have found themselves with multiple problems that create a lot of pain in their lives until they make requests to the courts to allow them for euthanasia yet the law turns down their requests. Such cases present injustice in our societies because the victims should be of free will to choose euthanasia depending on the undignified life that they are leading. He already felt he had lost his self-worth and he committed suicide by starving himself. His life could have been dignified by euthanasia (Otani 50).

Respecting Personal Choices

Fourthly, euthanasia does not interfere with the lives of others. Voluntary euthanasia is a choice that people themselves choose, and they are not chosen for. Death is someone’s private affair that should not be interfered with by anyone. In the case of euthanasia, one might be assisted by a physician, but it is direct harm to the individual who has requested it because it terminates their life (Ramsay 1445). If someone requests for another that one is considered as murder. If a terminally ill patient requests for euthanasia it should not be denied because it is their will and, in fact, it unburdens their loved from emotional torture.

Given the fact that death is something that is specific and personal, there is no need for others to hinder other people’s choices regarding their death. No other person is affected apart from the victim who has made a personal decision. Therefore, such requests should not be turned down, but they should set up a system to support such options. If the practice could be affecting other people’s lives, legalizing the act would be debatable. However, in this case, no other person is affected, an aspect which proves that euthanasia should be legalized (Ganzini et al 807).

The Right to Live and the Right to Die

Lastly, according to human rights, every person has a right to live and the right to die. Life cannot be there if there is no death, that is why human beings live to die. When a patient is terminally ill, they know that their life is ending and no matter what there is nothing they can do about it. Therefore, no human being should stand against other people’s free will decision to choose death. Death cannot be prevented by any action not even through illegalizing euthanasia. Thus, it is clear that nations should legalize the practice of euthanasia because when death comes about, no man can stop.

Afterlife, there is just death, and nothing on earth even technology can replace this curse placed on human beings. Therefore, the right to live should give equal weight to the right to die and not allow people to suffer. Just the same way people enjoy the rights to live on earth, they should also be given the freedom to choose death if they want. Thus, there is a need for all the nations of the world to consider permitting euthanasia practice in the society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is undoubtedly through that all the nations of the world should consider legalizing the practice of euthanasia. In as much as some societies on the globe view euthanasia as bad, a keen analysis reveals that euthanasia has more advantages to the individuals and the entire nation in general. The practice brings about both the economic and the social benefits which are essential for every country.

When people request for euthanasia or carry out the act of euthanasia, it is because they believe being dead will relieve them from the pain they are going through than being alive. They are better off dead because continuing being alive only worsens the situation. Therefore, it is essential for people to understand that committing the act of euthanasia only benefit the person died because the society cares about people’s well-being. For this reason, people that have a terminal illness should not be restricted from euthanasia. Therefore, voluntary euthanasia should be legalized so people with a terminal illness would have an opportunity to die on their terms.

Works Cited

Boudreau, John. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, Can you even imagine teaching medical students how to end their patients’ lives? Perm J, 2011, pp. 79-84.

Downie, Jocelyn. Restorative justice, euthanasia, and the assisted suicide, A new arena for the restorative justice and a new path for the end of life law and policy. Alberta Law Review. 2011, pp. 965-988.

 Ganzini Linda, Goy Elizabeth, Dobscha, Steven & Prigerson, Hofman. “Mental health outcomes of family members of Oregonians who request physician aid in dying.” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2009, pp. 807-815.

Lewis, Penney. The empirical slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia. The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 2007, pp. 197-210.

Otani, Izumi. “Good Manner of Dying” as a Normative Concept: “Autocide,” “Granny Dumping” and Discussions on Euthanasia/Death with Dignity in Japan.“ International Journal of Japanese Society, 2010, pp. 49-63

Pope, Thaddeus. Involuntary passive euthanasia in the U.S. Courts: Reassessing the judicial treatment of medical futility cases. Marquette Elder’s Advisor. 2008, pp. 229 - 268.

Ramsay, Roberts. ”A king, a doctor, and a convenient death.“ British Medical Journal. 2011, pp. 1445.