Science and technology are the two main things that have advanced our lives on this planet as everyone has entered the modern era. The innovations in these two fields have given enough power to humans, to either destroy the earth or save it from the upcoming epidemic. History is the proof of lives eradicated from this world due to war, natural disasters, terrorism, and diseases, which have led individuals to endless pain and agony. This tormenting pain and misery possesses the potential of killing humans a thousand times before they even die, as death is believed to bring peace, but it is the suffering before death that can sometimes be unbearable and incurable. Nevertheless, this dreadful ability of humans to kill can also become the only ray of hope for someone sure of death to come, but yet unable to bear the affliction that precedes it. This hope is called euthanasia or assisted suicide which provides an available option of letting the pain go, to those who suffer from a terminal illness and can not recover. Countries such as Canada, which have legalized euthanasia have understood that sometimes assisted suicide is more humane than life itself, making it possible for its citizens to practice their human rights and freedoms to the full extent. Whereas, the majority of the countries still fail to grasp this concept and believe natural death is the only way out of suffering.
Humans are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. They can eat what they like, exercise when they want, smoke, and drink alcohol as much as they want, but yet when it comes to death, most countries’ governments do not permit euthanasia. If it is immoral to
kill someone, it is also immoral to make them live longer than they want, especially when they are in a vegetative state or terminally ill. Also, if a patient has a right to be given medicine and be cured, then they should also be given the right to decide when they want to stop taking that treatment if it is helpless and will only prolong the unnecessary suffering. In some situations, it becomes necessary to kill the patient to kill the symptoms making euthanasia more benevolent than life. Since alternative treatments are not always available or affordable in certain cases such as cancer, it is kind and generous to let people ‘die with dignity’ rather than to force them into continuing their lives with anguish. Moreover, death is a matter of privacy, if it does not harm the general public or the government, no one has a right to interfere in the patient’s choice or question the decision made by their loved ones. Additionally, everyone needs to understand that euthanasia is about having mercy on a person who wishes to end the torture. As long as it does not violate someone’s rights, and is the best option available that fits the interests of people involved, it should be morally acceptable.
Furthermore, euthanasia can be safely regulated by the government through medical auditors, as the cases in which it is allowed are limited and it is not hard to decide whether the person can live on while enduring the pain. A patient has a right to choose when to die if they do not, it is a violation of their human rights and personal freedom because that can be seen as forcing an individual to go on living when they do not want to. Correspondingly, it is hypocritical of the court to see euthanasia as a crime if they do not regard suicide as one. Additionally, there are different types of euthanasia, for instance, passive euthanasia in which a doctor pulls the plug or withdraws a treatment thereby letting the person die. Whereas, active euthanasia is defined as death that happens due to an act in which someone deliberately kills the patient to relieve their torment. Comparatively, voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person requests somebody to kill them, while involuntary euthanasia occurs when the patient is too unconscious or mentally unstable to make a decision, so his or her family decides on behalf of. Indirect euthanasia, on the other hand, means providing a drug or treatment to reduce pain but it also ends up speeding the patient’s death. As a result, even if a country’s law legalizes passive euthanasia, it can benefit millions of people, not only relieving the patient’s suffering but also their loved ones’ pain in watching them suffer.
However, many religions and conservative groups, in this post-modern age, still oppose mercy killing and give common anti-euthanasia arguments. They say that laws regulating can be abused and people who wish to live and fight death could also die. On the contrary, they fail to realize that laws are abused all the time. Does it mean we should not have them at all? Similarly, they believe that giving humans the right to die would foist on doctors a duty to kill. Conversely, anesthesiologists and pain relief departments also must relieve people from pain, so if the only way out of pain is death, then what is wrong with it? At least it is their duty and not their right. Moreover, it does not restrict the autonomy of doctors as they do get permission from either the patient or the patient’s family before performing any actions, surgeries, or treatments by getting a document signed, about the hospital not taking any responsibility if something unexpected happens. In addition, they argue by saying that God gives us life, so he should decide when to put an end to it. Although this may be true, no one can confirm it as parents are believed to be the ones who gave us existence in this world. So, as long as they agree and can not watch their child suffer, why make euthanasia completely illegal? Also, by legalizing euthanasia, one can still believe in God as he wants people to follow the example of Jesus and help those who are suffering. Countries can legalize it by imposing strong restrictions upon its use. After all, it is for society as a whole and not for selfish individual needs or reasons.
Therefore, euthanasia should not be regarded as killing, murdering, or dying. Rather it should be seen as a way of relieving pain and ending torment. Canada’s law regarding euthanasia does not encourage doctors to murder their patients to end suffering, neither does it say that a doctor should kill to avoid suffering, it simply wants them to solve the suffering even if it results in death. Many countries’ laws state that it is a crime for a doctor to kill a patient at will, but for a doctor to neglect a patient’s adversity, to ignore a plea to end pain is also a crime. If a doctor can not cure pains, they should stop the agony as if they do nothing, the patient’s torment does not stop and they feel tortured every single moment. Thus, every person on this planet needs to accept that advancing or accelerating one’s death to make them feel at ease and advancing one’s death to take their life away is different. Henceforth, humanity should be pro-euthanasia and its legality should be the concern of every country whose laws are against it.
Did you like this example?
Yes
No
Cite this paper
Essay on Is Euthanasia Legal in Canada.
(2024, July 31). Edubirdie. Retrieved December 21, 2024, from https://edubirdie.com/examples/essay-on-is-euthanasia-legal-in-canada/
“Essay on Is Euthanasia Legal in Canada.” Edubirdie, 31 Jul. 2024, edubirdie.com/examples/essay-on-is-euthanasia-legal-in-canada/
Essay on Is Euthanasia Legal in Canada. [online].
Available at: <https://edubirdie.com/examples/essay-on-is-euthanasia-legal-in-canada/> [Accessed 21 Dec. 2024].
Essay on Is Euthanasia Legal in Canada [Internet]. Edubirdie.
2024 Jul 31 [cited 2024 Dec 21].
Available from: https://edubirdie.com/examples/essay-on-is-euthanasia-legal-in-canada/
copy
Stuck on your essay?
