Physician assisted suicide should be a right given to all people who are suffering from a painful, degenerative, or deadly condition. Anyone who might never enjoy the luxuries of living a happy and healthy life again. Though several ongoing debates are against physician-assisted suicide, ethicists are still not the one who is responsible to make this decision. Patients have the right to free will and human dignity that gives them the right to choose physician assisted suicide. Being able to have this choice allows the patient to maintain some control over their devastating situation.
Although euthanasia to some may seem as a form of murder, it should not be considered murder as it is done in for the alleged benefit of the human being. Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless matter for people who are suffering a terminal illness. Murder on the other hand is the unlawful killing of a human being with a desire to inflict pain, suffering, or death out of impulse or for no reason at all. For some people euthanasia is considered to be morally wrong, but that all depends on a persons personal beliefs but it is not the same as murder as it takes into consideration the person who is suffering and is done with their consent or their families. There are many different forms of euthanasia and because of these different forms, euthanasia has caused many controversies.
Furthermore, euthanasia is unnecessary in the presence of palliated care. Palliated care ensures proper and intensive care of patients. It seems like a better option of dealing with the illnesses of patients as compared to losing complete hope on recovery and life. Euthanasia is a quick, painless end to life; whereas palliated care is one that can relieve pain. Executing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses, defeating doctors’ and nurses’ purposes of saving lives.
Killing stands for the killer taking others’ life, but it is not the will of the person who is killed. Some people believe that it is good to help people relief themselves of pain, and do not need to suffer anymore. Some people would think euthanasia is a murder. Here is the question, is euthanasia a helpful thing or a crime? Should euthanasia be allowed?
The Church was criticized for a large number of things by the Protestants. One of these was the religious exclusiveness that the Church demonstrated. The Church believed that there is only one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. This belief turned the word ‘church’ into a proper noun. Another thing that the Church was often criticized for was the lack of separation between Church and State.
• Active euthanasia – A doctor or a nurse gives an ill patient medicine that will kill them. Not all doctors agree with this as they feel that participating in the ending of someone’s life is not part of their job role. • Passive euthanasia – A patient does not get the medicine or treatment that they need in order to stay alive. It can also be classified as: • Voluntary euthanasia – where a person makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do this. • Non – voluntary euthanasia – where a person is unable to give their consent for example if they are severely brain damaged, and another person makes the decision on their behalf.
Euthanasia should remain illegal Euthanasia is a word with such great meaning but is often misunderstood by individuals. Some define this term as “the right to die” whereas others define it as “the right to kill Euthanasia is the act of encouraging a painless death or looking for the help for a good death. The act of euthanasia often occurs because long-term patients would rather drink poison or get shot by somebody than suffering their whole life fighting against a major disease. The term euthanasia is also known as mercy killing since it’s a way of ending one’s life who is not willing to live anymore. [1] This happens usually for compassionate reasons such as to reduce the pain of the ill ones.
The boy may have wanted an end to his suffering. So much of him was lost and he would never be the same as he was before. Perhaps his parents do not know what is best for him The values of the contra-characters the medical establishment and the ALD foundation were evident as Indifferent focused only on protocol. These are the values the movie wishes us to see. There was concern for prolonging the suffering and an interest in following rules as to limit any harm coming to a human test subject.
For example, many people against this decision claim that it is not ethical due to the fundamental tenet of medical ethics which is “Do no harm” (Bender 37).This decision is very ethical because what is not ethical is letting an innocent person die instead of taking the route of assisted suicide. If the person suffering was a relative of another person will they think twice not to because it is their loved ones suffering. By defining ethics it is related to a moral principle in which many differ from principles and standards. Another debate can be that assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. Assisted suicide is a choice which the constitution does support freedom of choice.
Before assigning value to life it should be considered what that person did in their lifetime not just their job, or their major achievements, but how they affected other people in either a positive or negative way. This is why suicide is such a selfish act. In Hamlet’s famous speech he states, “No traveler returns, puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than to fly to others that we know not of” (Shakespeare 33)? In other words Hamlet believes that it might be better to live through the trials of life than journey into the unknown. Suicide is a permanent solution to temporary problems and when successful leaves behind a mass of grieving people.