A follower of Natural Law would object to euthanasia, chiefly for this reason. A follower of Natural Law would argue that the sanctity of life is important, building up on what St. Thomas Aquinas asserted- that all life is sacred. Euthanasia denies a person’s natural course of life and this takes away sacredness of life. Euthanasia, although it could be used to end a person’s suffering is not taking into account that God set people’s lives out to be a certain way and only he can take and give life. A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’.
Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized for the simple fact many would give up and take the easy way out. There is currently a pervasive assumption that if assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia (AS/VE) were to legalized, then doctors would take responsibility for making the decision that these interventions were indicated, for prescribing the medication, and (in euthanasia) for administering it .Richard Huxable remarks “that homicide law encompasses various crimes, so prosecutors can choose charges to suit the circumstances. Yet one thing is clear: mercy killing is still killing, equally, murder is murder” Physician assisted suicide is nothing more than cold blooded
They believe that “life is the most basic gift of loving God-a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion”. Even if it is legalized in many places around the world today, there are many that are still strongly against it. Dr. Leo Alexander says that “the problem with euthanasia is the acceptance of an attitude that life is worthless, can be thrown away. That attitude is in its early stages right now, but as it progresses, so will our value of life drop. Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted, will be considered useless; will kill off our own species, our morals.
Therefore, I agree with euthanasia protestors. Instead of ending someone’s life in order to prevent any more suffering, we should alleviate pain by improving our hospice care and making our healthcare system more affordable. Let us not lose our humanity by valuing life from the best ethical rules possible. In conclusion, the severity and the complexity of the euthanasia debate indicate why euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics. While some people strongly believe that euthanasia should be legalized, other people insist that euthanasia is literally a type of murder.
Advancements in the medical field have increased debates over the controversial topic of medical euthanasia. Opposing views find total fault in this medical concept, while supporters see every beneficial ease (Ondrey, James H., ed 8). “Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a person, usually in an attempt to end the person’s suffering” (Ondrey, James H., ed 7). Euthanasia known as the right-to-die movement derives from the greek meaning of “good death”. Euthanization is performed by a physician, while physician assisted suicide allows the patient to administer the act of death (Ondrey, James H., ed 7-8).
They believe that people should die naturally and should not be assisted in their death by medical means. People believe that PAS is unethical and should not even be considered. “Many people fear that physician-assisted suicide will create a climate in which some people are pressured into committing suicide. The very old, the very poor, or minorities and other vulnerable populations might be encouraged to hasten death, rather than to "burden" their families or the health care system. Again, this is not a genuine choice, but a social issue, one that stems from how our society cares for its elders and for the poor, and whether minority groups can get good health care” (Lynn, 2006).
The concept is for the church to stay out of the state’s business and opponents are clearly crossing the line. They would not appreciate if the government came in to their church and tell him how to operate so they should mind their own business and stay out of the government’s business. Self-determination without compromise is a civil right. People should be able to choose a good death after they’ve lived a good life. It is the right of a terminally ill person to end excruciating pain.
Assess this argument: ‘Killing is wrong if and only if it deprives a person of a valuable future life; some terminally ill people do not have a valuable future life; so it is not wrong to kill them’. Voluntary euthanasia is the ending of human life and intentionally relieving pain that a patient is suffering due to a terminal illness such as cancer. By definition, diseases such as cancer, cannot be cured or sufficiently treated and are expected to result in the death of the patient within the near future. As they no longer see the remaining months left of their life valuable, ending their life now seems a rational request. Killing is a form of active euthanasia whereby a person is deliberately causing death of a patient.
Those against it, believe life is given by God, and he decides when to end it. All Christian Variants are opposed to Euthanasia, as they believe the direct and voluntary killing of human life is wrong. They believe Euthanasia violates the fact that humans are created in Gods image (imagio dei) and only God is able to end someones life. No Christian has the right to terminate life, "for everything there is a reason....a time to be born, and a time to die"(Ecclesiastes
From the con side of the topic Physicians legally and morally should not assist in suicide of terminally ill patients. This simple fact could boil down to the simple fact that suicide is suicide and it is morally wrong. A lot of countries around the world feel as though this is not moral and this why it is illegal in a vast majority of countries around the world. You could argue that this goes against a doctor’s job. The medical person who is administering the drug is not doing their job as a doctor, which is to help people not kill