As a result, we have organizations such as Dignity in Dying that have a view that 'Dying people are not suicidal' they don't want to die but they do not have the choice to live. When death is inevitable, suffering should not be. Along with good care, dying people deserve the choice to control the timing and manner of their death.' This is a strong view that incorporates exactly what someone who is in a position of euthanizing themselves would want, and there should be a powerful emphasis on this especially the idea that death is inevitable, suffering should not be. As euthanasia comes with a negative stereotype that the use of euthanasia is going to be mistreated and abused etc., those who are suffering from untreatable diseases also know that their death is going to come but with a whole bundle of suffering, therefore, these two negative stereotypes can go hand in hand and cancel each other if euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized. Secondly, another main factor that hinders the use of assisted suicide is the thought that it will be heavily abused by medical staff, but we can come up with an easy solution to this as it should be dying people not doctors in control as a result assisted dying should be controlled by the dying person. Dying people should have support to take the final act that brings about their peaceful death, as no ' one wants to support. A law that would allow anyone to end another's life, which is an important protection to ensure that assisted death is completely voluntary. A key question that normally exists around euthanasia is, how will assisted dying impact the relationship between doctors and patients? Polling shows that 87% of people say an assisted dying law would increase or have no effect on their trust in doctors. Changing the law would allow dying people to have open and honest conversations with their doctors about assisted dying. This is currently impossible within the law. As well as the question that Can we be sure assisted dying is not the start of a 'slippery slope'? Fears of a slippery slope are not backed up by evidence. Where assisted dying is legal, there have been no cases of abuse and no widening of the law. Assisted deaths in Oregon account for just 0.4% of deaths. Belgium and the Netherlands are sometimes cited as examples of the 'slippery slope'. But these jurisdictions have always had much broader laws than the ones the people campaign for. The current law contains no safeguards to protect dying people who want to control their death. An assisted dying law would protect against a 'slippery slope', not encourage one. Also, would an assisted dying law protect vulnerable people? The current law does not prevent or protect people from having an assisted death. An assisted dying law would protect vulnerable people and be a much safer alternative.
People are traveling abroad for assistance to die, ending their own lives, or receiving illegal help from doctors. Authorities turn a blind eye to these practices. An assisted dying law would bring transparency, regulation, and oversight. Two doctors and a judge would explore a person's motivations for requesting assisted dying. They would make sure the person met all the eligibility criteria and also explain treatment options. Research from overseas shows that assisted dying laws have no negative impact on vulnerable people.
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
Conversely, the legalization of euthanasia would pose a great threat to the safety and security of our people, for example, had euthanasia been legalized and our doctors were faced with a patient in immense pain, however, the pain was curable, if the patient had a request of euthanasia due to factors which the doctor was unaware of the request of euthanasia would have had to been granted and as of such the doctor would have to euthanize the patient, but on what grounds? Therefore, as the ethical factors come into play, and this situation comes to light then the doctor's job would be jeopardized, but who was at fault the doctor, or the patient? However, the situation can totally be reversed to look at it from another view as it may lead to vulnerable people being taken advantage of and people's lives may be ended against their wishes, if the final decision was authorized to be made by others, i.e. doctors or family members. Therefore, as euthanasia is a life decision that can not be reversed, it is crucial that any law to allow this would have to be very clear and detailed regarding if and when it is acceptable.
The majority of's population is now backing away from the old orthodox views of the country and there has been a major step away from religion, however where the talk of euthanasia exists, the dilemma of religion also lingers as those who are from a religious background and follow the teachings of religion whether that be Christianity, Islam, Judaism or even Hinduism, they all have a firm belief that life is a gift from God and only he can decide when life should be over. Therefore, the Christian view is that life is given by God and that human beings are made in God's image. Some churches also emphasize the importance of not interfering with the natural process of death. Those who follow the Christian teachings also believe that life holds and possesses a strong value of its own as well as an intrinsic dignity in the idea that God created a life of a human in his own image, to possess and share those good qualities and to have a unique rationale of having the capacity to see what is good to possess in this life and the hereafter and to want what is good for this life and to better the hereafter, as people continue to develop and grow these Godly abilities they live a life that puts them next to God's life of love and who wouldn't want to live a life of love and prosperity so in order to keep this love in continuation life should be preserved and as a result of these beliefs to propose euthanasia would be an insult to God's cycle of love and would be a judgment that the current life of that individual is not worthwhile and God hasn't done everything to better that individuals life. Therefore, arguments based on the quality of life are deemed invalid by the teachings of the church, and as a result, the request for euthanasia shouldn't even exist because no one has the right to value anyone, even themselves, as worthless as this is an insult to God. The Roman Catholic church has a strong hold on the idea against euthanasia and does not accept that human beings have a right to die, human beings are considered everyone to be their own however, this does not extend to the ending of their own lives, a human being who insists on their right to die is blatantly denying the truth of their fundamental relationship with God. Moreover, as it is morally wrong to commit suicide it is also morally wrong to help someone commit suicide. 'True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.' (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995). The Orthodox churches still have an orthodox view that those who commit to this pathway of suicide and continue to defy God's plan will have no riddance to their suffering and will have no entrance either to heaven or hell as their soul continues to suffer. Therefore, this idea of religion heavily impacts the position on euthanasia as the Office for National Statistics (2019), states that 51.0% of the country considers themselves as Christian, 38.4% of the population do not follow a religion so in following Christianity we have Islam at 5.7% as a result the Muslimi view is that Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings should not interfere in this, as a result they have some explicit beliefs: life is sacred, 'Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice.' (Qur'an 17:33), Allah decides how long each of us will live 'When their time comes they cannot delay it for a single hour nor can they bring it forward by a single hour.' (Qur'an 16:61), suicide and euthanasia are explicitly forbidden 'Destroy not yourselves. Surely Allah is ever merciful to you.' (Qur'an 4:29)
As a result of this 56.7% of the population of the country follows religions that have such a strong stake hold on the idea that they are completely against euthanasia so how can the country move away from euthanasia being illegal and have an attempt towards legalisation and if we were to have a democratic decision on the legalisation of euthanasia from these statistics it is highly unlikely that we will be seeing a move towards euthanasia in the near coming generations as 56.7% more than half of the population (without Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism) all of which are against euthanasia. If a vote was to be carried out, and undertaken then the representing people at least half of them would follow a religion that does not allow the use of euthanasia which can be implicitly demonstrated as such that euthanasia would hold no chance of progression within the country until religion reduces and releases its stronghold position against the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide because religion has continued to influence the decision upon euthanasia since the start of time and as a country whose main religion is Christianity and as a Christian country it is hard to differ whether there will be a change or improvement on how religion will continue its influence or rather the country will develop in this aspect as well and leave behind these conservative views and have a more modernized approach towards assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under English law, due to this the use of assisted suicide alongside euthanasia cannot be used to relieve patients, as assisted suicide is another variation and comes under the term of euthanasia. Therefore, due to this those who are suffering right now under the current law are not able to access services such as these at the comfort of their own country and are having to put themselves in greater difficulty and discomfort in order to relieve themselves of this pain. The boasts of its national health service as they do the best they can for their patients, so then why are people taking such a drastic step towards travelling and being euthanized in another country when we should be able to provide services as these. It's almost as if the country doesn't trust itself, their medical professionals, and their laws and regulations. We are not a third world Country and certainly are more than able to provide euthanasia within our country, with a strict law, strict guidelines and heavy regulation upon the use of euthanasia we have more than enough safeguards in place, which are able to keep our patients safe. However, this is not the case ' euthanasia is not legal in our country as it is felt that everyone's safety is at risk. In order to be able to provide and receive these services we need a strong way of regulating the laws in place so that our citizens can access it.
Currently, the country is at a state where sustained contact with a personal physician is decreasing due to the pandemic we have just experienced as the aftermath of that still remains which was heavily damaging in terms of contact with physicians as we still live with the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic today, this left terminally ill patients distraught and unable to seek the help they urgently required as many suffered and passed away in pain - therefore, had euthanasia been an option available to our patients they would have been helped more easily and wouldn't have had to live through the unnecessary hardships and difficulties. Conversely, the reduction of face-to-face contact with the medically qualified personnel also puts our patients at a disadvantage as well as reducing the chance and possibility of legalization of euthanasia due to safeguarding issue if the patients aren't essentially meeting with the doctors, then some advantage may be taken of them, as with over the phone appointments we don't know who the patients are speaking to, and they won't receive all the help they need. However, we may be able to see the use of physician assisted suicide as this leaves the fundamental decision of intervention in order to end their life in patients alone, and no risk is posed. This is due to the physician being involved but not directly, and the choice is solely the patient but doesn't necessarily have to be alone whilst making this tough and determining decision. Therefore, the risk of subtle and unnoticeable coercion from doctors, family members and other social forces is reduced by a vast amount. This is demonstrated by (Quill, Cassel, and Meier, 1998) as the balance of power between doctor and patient is more nearly equal than what would be under euthanasia. If the patient is content and know physician assisted suicide is the way ahead, then the physician is able to take up the role of a counselor and guide the patient as ultimately it is the patient who determines whether to act upon this or not. If the patient wishes to act the doctor solely becomes a witness, if laws were in favor of euthanasia, then physician assisted suicide would be the safest option as no-one other than the patients hold the power, subsequently meaning anyone who is other than the patient will have no way of causing harm or doing anything against their wishes. As control is placed firmly into the hands of the patient and they themselves perform the final act to end their lives, their actions and decisions are likely to not be unduly influenced by external pressures and influence and actually tend to be more autonomous, these autonomous decisions are intrinsically desirable and are less susceptible to abuse. Physician assisted suicide would also be the best way forward as there is no intervention until the patient wishes so ' this provides a wider sense of security as statistics show that 41% of people claim that they've been victims of medical malpractice, 250,000 deaths occur annually due to medical negligence. (Elma Mrkonjic, 2021), therefore, as a result of minimal physician intervention there is no fear that anything will be consensual or forced upon the patient. Consequently, the current access to medical care is too inequitable aptly, the risk of legalizing active voluntary euthanasia would be too damaging, as there is a real danger that it will be overused and the authority of it would be abused. Therefore, a strong motivation of active euthanasia may arise from social and economic pressures and have no logical justification of their authentic desire to pass away painlessly. The patient therefore holds more symbolic control as they are willing to be the agent of their own death as this provides a more unambiguous demonstration of their desire andor desperate suffering. Another pragmatic reasoning for the likes of physician assisted suicide (PAS), is that the use of PAS allows and relieves the physician of being the immediate cause of the patients death, which must be of stress to even those doctors who are in aid of legalization of active euthanasia, as both practices of euthanasia and PAS counter to the instincts of preservation of life. Therefore, within the practice of PAS, the doctrine of double effect can be dissolved, the doctrine of double effect essentially differentiates between the morality of the action of a doctor who intends rather than foresees a patient's death. As pain relief for a terminally ill patient is seen as acceptable ' however an injection of potassium cyanide is deemed as morally and medically incorrect, making the distinction between intention and foreseeable far from clear, as on various occurrences doctors give their patients painkiller, but how much painkillers must be given before this action also becomes morally indefensible? Therefore, a legalisation of physician assisted suicide would eliminate the doctrine of double effect as we have essentially established with the previous evidence that under PAS, the power between patient and the doctors is balanced if it were to go plan then it would be under the action of the patient and essentially the doctor would simply overlook the procedure under the informed coherent decision of the patient.
To conclude, assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legalised so that we are able to support the terminally ill and those members of our society that are in desperate suffering. However, it is not so simple as this debate has been going on for centuries and will continue to do so for many to come, as we have to have strict safeguards in place and heavy regulation ' however, as it has been discussed in the report this regulation is costly and as a result more money would need to be invested in our NHS ' which with the current aftermath of the pandemic doesn't seem so possible. Secondly, with the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia there is a constant lingering threat of abuse ' we never know when a patient can be taken advantage of by the practicing professionals, their own family, or external social forces, when the end time comes it is extremely difficult upon the patients , their families and the doctors when the situation becomes untreatable ' this leaves us with no way forward so what can we do? Palliative care has been designed for cases like this but our main aim as discussed throughout the report is to relieve the patients of their suffering, and morally how much painkillers can we provide to a patient for them to consistently end back up in the same desperation. This constant use of painkillers stimulated the terminal respiratory secretions due to the build up of fluid colloquially known as the death rattle, this noise is due to the build up and signals the patient is about to pass when we reach situations such as this the doctors stop providing painkillers and do nothing in attempts to help get rid of the patients' suffering because there's not much more they can do than comfort, this is why euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalized, regardless of what the patient may want in terms of their ease, at least they will have the option of intervention through the practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia. As discussed throughout the report, serious consideration should be given to the legalization of assisted suicide as this will take away the responsibility of the doctor and control would be passed to them whether the patient wishes to act upon this or not.
Stuck on your essay?
