Advantages of Euthanasia Essay

The subject of euthanasia is never a straightforward one. The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek language where 'eu means good' and 'euthanasia means death'. It is also known as 'mercy killing,' and is referred to as being an act that deliberately ends a person's life. This could be because the individual is suffering from a long-term illness or is terminally ill and this gives them considerable suffering and pain daily. There are different forms of euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when someone makes a conscious decision to seek help with ending their life. Nonvoluntary euthanasia is when someone else makes that decision. For example, when a patient is completely unconscious and a close family member decides to withdraw life support if their brain shows no sign of activity.

Several different countries have already legalized euthanasia or assisted dying and the number is growing. These countries include Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, France, Luxemburg, Spain, Colombia, some states in the US, and Switzerland which is probably the most familiar. New Zealand is the most recent to vote to legalize euthanasia in October 2020 in what campaigners have called a victory for compassion and kindness. All countries follow strict guidelines of varying levels including stating that patients must have an incurable or terminal condition with constant, intolerable mental or physical suffering and no prospect of improvement. At present euthanasia and assisted suicide are treated as murder or manslaughter. Under the Suicide Act 1961, it is not illegal to take your own life but under section 21 it is a criminal offense to 'aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another or an attempt of another to commit suicide. Therefore, in certain instances, on conviction of murder or manslaughter following a mercy killing, the individual could face a mandatory life sentence in prison.

So, what would be the advantages of legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill? Pro supporters argue that terminally ill people should have the right to be able to end their suffering quickly, especially if they have the knowledge that they will get progressively worse over time. Certain movements such as 'Death with Dignity' argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. Therefore, the terminally ill should have the ultimate right to decide when and how they die with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. Without this choice when an individual is in the final stages of a terminal illness, they will usually end up being completely reliant on the health service and their own families for help in the most normal of tasks and may even be completely incapacitated and incapable of anything themselves, which is extremely degrading and undignified. Many would argue that if an animal were in this particular position a veterinarian would agree to allow this animal to die with compassion, so why is a human being less deserving of the same dignity?

The belief of individuals seeking an end to insufferable pain has led them to travel to those countries where the procedure is legal. In 2018, 221 people traveled to the Swiss clinic, Dignitas, for assisted suicide. Of these, 87 were from Germany, 31 from France, and 24 from. According to the Campaign for Dignity in Dying, a person travels to Dignitas for help to die every eight days. If they were able to access this procedure here it would alleviate the need for travel and the additional stress of transporting a patient that is in no doubt in a delicate and desperate situation. It would also open up the possibility for those that are not in the position to travel due to health reasons to be able to choose to end their suffering if death is inevitable.

There was a study in Britain in 2012 (Donnelly, 2012), which discovered that around 57,000 patients per year die without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. This usually applies to those incapacitated patients that were close to the end of their lives. If a patient was on life support for a long period against the patient's wish it would be considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy to keep them on this on this form of treatment indefinitely. This would suggest that doctors are practicing a form of euthanasia already. (Holligan, 2012).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

In contrast to the arguments above, there are many opponents to legalizing euthanasia for several different reasons. As stated in the Hippocratic Oath, doctors have a moral responsibility to keep their patients alive. By agreeing to administer this lethal injection to their patients it could be considered that they would be going against their pledge. Making assisted suicide part of the law could also give doctors too much power which means that they could potentially abuse their position. The executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the US, Rita Marker highlights this point here.

'laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer. 'Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about the right to die. They are about the right to kill.'

The's Care Not Killing alliance against legalized euthanasia said that the law is also in place to protect the vulnerable 'from being pressured into ending their lives'.

There are several religious concerns for many people, especially Catholics, who believe that life is the ultimate gift and that taking that away is usurping power that belongs to God only. The New York Times reported in 2020 that the Vatican had reiterated the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia. They even described the acts as 'intrinsically evil in every situation or circumstance'.

Family members could take advantage if euthanasia was legalized by influencing the patient's decision into it for personal gains. Also, there is no way you can be sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others. Even doctors cannot firmly predict the period of death and whether there is a possibility of remission with advanced treatment. So, implementing euthanasia would mean many unlawful deaths that could have well survived later. Legalizing euthanasia would be like empowering law abusers and increasing the distrust of patients toward doctors.

In conclusion, there are many pros and cons that need to be considered when examining euthanasia for terminally ill people is made legal. Weighing up the arguments for and against this action cannot give a definitive answer as to what would be the right way forward in this country. Moral and religious beliefs and the wording of the Hippocratic oath for doctors challenges the right for an individual or family member to be able to decide to end their life before their natural time. There is a worry that giving authority to administer lethal injections to patients could lead to an abuse of power and position leading to a downward spiral of unlawful murders disguised as assisted suicide for personal gain. On the opposite side of the argument, the right to be able to choose to die with dignity and reduce the amount of pain an individual has to endure becomes a very personal decision that is almost impossible to understand unless the experience is a personal one.