Definition of Euthanasia
How it works
Euthanasia defined as an intentionally ending of the life of the terminally ill person in order to relieve pain or suffering, done by a physician, legally. This is not to be confused with the similar physician assisted suicide, the suicide of patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drug by a doctor for this purpose. It is legal in only a few places of the world, and the laws vary by the places. That means the terminally ill patient who lives in the best part of the word is forced to live with the severe agonizing pain. Euthanasia should be legalized, so that, the all who are suffering tremendously, lost hope to live, and wants to get out of the pain, can find the way out. It is been a controversial issue since the beginning of the 20th century and continues to divide nations today.
Supporters of euthanasia consider it a basic human right, while on the other side, it is considered to be murdered by opposers. Both sides have several reasons for their positions, they are ranging from political and secular to religious and ethical. Natural law is thought to be a kind of ‘cloaking device’ used in order to ‘conceal’ the imposition of divine moral imperatives on secular society.(craig, paterson)
How it works
The major problem with this issue is that and most likely the reason that it continues to be such a controversial in politics and policy making is the complexity the government physician patients and ultimately society faces and setting boundaries and establishing a system. the concerns of critics of euthanasia are the consequences and intricate factors that come with the legalization of euthanasia. the opposition believes that accepting the less drastic degree of euthanasia which is voluntarily or active will lead to the practice of involuntary euthanasia add the devaluation of life. this is also known as the slippery slope argument with which most people have heard about. A physician faces the possibility of overlooking possible treatments or even aren’t a diagnosis. hopefully, the choices of euthanasia are given to the patient though, but then this presents the chance that the patient is not in the right stage of mind to be making such a permanent decision, or could even be influenced by the third party who has a personal interest. now the opposite side supporters of euthanasia as myself often argue on the basis of individual rights. if the person is physically able and do not need any assistance to administer euthanasia, they could commit suicide which isn’t illegal, so it could be argued that the denied of euthanasia is a form of discrimination against terminally ill person, since they are less capable. also refusing to end one’s pain and suffering could be considered cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited in our country. ultimately as it is one’s right to live is also one’s right to have some control over the time and manner of their death.both sides of these debate present sound and logical arguments and at the end are mostly concerned with the well being of the patient because of this it could be possible to reach a solution that could satisfy both parties. the things that oppositionist are most concerned about, could help establish a secure system of safeguards that can make the legalization of euthanasia possible without complete chaos or even corruption. any violators of the system should definitely be severely punished in order to avoid future incidences. similarly to violators of the social security benefits system in our country or any other federal programs. additionally, a federal board of doctors is specialized in euthanasia can be appointed to make decisions in which liability could be an issue. only these doctors should be allowed to rule whether euthanasia is appropriate and conducted themselves, that should be illegal to anyone else. in order to overcome the problem of a state of mind, citizens should be required to choose a stance on euthanasia pride or illness. the way this could be done is that could be treated as the organ donor system. once you receive your license, you’re often asked, do you wanna be an organ donor or not? if euthanasia will legalized at the same time, you could be asked whether you are for or against euthanasia. though this is been a controversial issue for nearly a century, it is possible to reach an agreement. both sides need to work together in the salvage district and specific system.
Paterson, Craig. Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia : A Natural Law Ethics Approach, Routledge, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/chattcollege/detail.action?docID=438867.
. Natural law is thought to be a kind of ‘cloaking device’ used in order to ‘conceal’ the imposition of divine moral imperatives on secular society.