Legalization of Euthanasia

People capture the right to health check fearfulness, but spite and excruciation for a person has to be integrity of the toughest things in living to deal with. In the health cargon world, few topics create a debate as heated as mercy killing. mercy killing comes from the Greek word meaning good end. Euthanasia is the practice of exterminateing the life of a person either by lethal injection or the suspension of medical treatment. In this es hypothesise, I will discuss the benefits and negatives in legalizing euthanasia.Although legalizing euthanasia would help alleviate excruciation in final stagely ill patients, the act of intentionally killing an person de honors human life causing a distrust in physicians and may even ferment a means of health c be cost containment, empowering justness abusers. Firstly, ill discuss the benefit in legalizing euthanasia, for it is a good way of ultimately relieving extreme torment when a persons quality of life is low. The biggest argument in favor of euthanasia is that the person involved is in great pain in the ass.Legalizing euthanasia would help alleviate twinge of terminal figurely ill patients. It would be inhuman and unfair to make them endure the unbear adequate pain. In case of individuals suffering from incurable diseases or in conditions where efficient treatment wouldnt affect their quality of life they should be given the liberty to choose induced death. Also, the motive of euthanasia is to aid-in-dying painlessly and thus should be considered and accepted by law. Although killing in an attempt to defend cardinalself is far different from mercy killing, law does find it worth approving.In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve his suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with bedevilment and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy . Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way to help one die peacefully out of the compromising posture. Euthanasia should be a natural extension of patients rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death for him.Maintaining life have a bun in the oven systems against patients wish is considered unethical by law as hearty as medical philosophy. If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment why would he non have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable anguish? Isnt the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic? Faye Girsh, at the terminal Exit Network says, At the Hemlock Society we fasten calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all qualityAmeri arseholes should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights the right not to be oblige to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone li ve who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent. That point beingnessness made, the act of intentionally taking the life of an individual also devalues human life which may cause a distrust in physicians and ultimately makes this form of pain alleviation a bad idea. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life.People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissable to take human life down the stairs some circumstances such as self defense but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life either their own or someone elses. With euthanasia no ones life is being saved, or else life is only taken. History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why in that respect are only two countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why nigh all societies, even non-religious ones, for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime.There are also two topics to discuss here the definition of terminal and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who arent terminally ill. There are many definitions for the word terminal. For example, when he spoke to the National Press fellowship in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was any disease that curtails life even for a day. The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to terminal old age. Some laws define terminal condition as one from which death will occur in a relatively short time. Others plead that terminal means that death is expected within six months or less. Even where a specific life expectancy is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is some impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient.Some people diagnosed as terminally ill dont die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, re placing them with such phrases as hopelessly ill, desperately ill, incurably ill, hopeless condition, and meaningless life. Even doctors fecesnot firmly predict about the period of death and whether there is a possibility of remission with advanced treatment. Bernard Baumrin, PhD, MD, Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York, wrote in his chapter, doctor, Stay Thy Hand that appeared in the 1998 book Physician Assisted Suicide Expanding the Debate, Doctors must not engage in assisting suicide. They are inheritors of a valuable tradition that inspires public trust. None should be even partly responsible for the erosion of that trust.Nothing that is remotely beneficial to some particular patient in extremis is worth the damage that will be created by the perception that physicians sometimes aid and even abet people in taking their own lives. So, implementing euthanasia would mean many unlawful deaths that could have well survived later. Along with empowering law abusers and increasing distrust of patients towards doctors, legalizing euthanasia may also lead to using as a means for health care cost containment.Perhaps one of the near important developments in recent years is the increasing emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate, euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost containment. In the United States, thousands of people have no medical insurance studies have shown that the poor and minorities primarily are not given access to available pain control, and managed-care facilities are offering physicians cash bonuses if they dont provide care for patients.With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed care, many doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients. Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person chooses to die rather than gain vigor long-term care. Savings to the government may also become a consideration. This could take place if governments cut back on paying for treatment and care and replace them with the treatment of death.For example, immediately after the attainage of Measure 16, Oregons law permitting assisted suicide, Jean Thorne, the states Medicaid Director, proclaimed that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as solacement care under the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. Within eighteen months of Measure 16s passage, the State of Oregon announced plans to cut back on health care coverage for poor state residents. In Canada, hospital stays are being shortened while, at the same time, funds have not been made available for home care for the sick and elderly.Registered nurses are being replaced with less expensive practical nurses. Patients are forced to endure long waits for many types of needed surgery. Nearly all pain can be eliminated and, in those rare cases where it cant be eliminated, it can comfort be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a national and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain control and although voluntary euthanasia may help aleviate the pain that may come from seeing a loved one or being the one in pain, killing is not the answer to that scandal.This form of assisted suicide will not only diminish the honour and value of human life, but cause a distrust in doctors, create a rise in law abusers and a reason to allow individuals to pass in order to cut down on health care costs. The solution is to mandate better education of health care professionals on these all important(p) issues, to expand access to health care, and to inform patients about their rights as consumers.Everyone, whether it be a person with a life-threatening illness or a continuing condition, has the right to pain relief. With modern advances in pain control, no patient should ever be in excruciating pain. However, most doctors have never had a course in pain management so theyre unaware of what to do. If a patient who is under a doctors care is in excruciating pain, theres definitely a need to find a different doctor. But that doctor should be one who will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient. legalization of EuthanasiaARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY EUTHANASIA By Troy Jacques Euthanasia is known as the practice of deliberately ending a life which releases an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. This mercy killing is often referred as an easy and painless death. This can be done from the request of a dying patient or that persons legal representative. When this is done it is known as Voluntary Euthanasia. Not doing something to prevent someones death is known as passive or negative Euthanasia. Active or positive Euthanasia is when someone takes deliberate action to cause a death.Currently Euthanas ia is not allowed by law to be practiced on people. My opinion on Euthanasia is that it should be legalised because the patients get to die in less pain and suffering as possible, the majority of the public believe that Euthanasia should be allowed morally and in a impoverished society an individual should be able to choose their time of death. Patients with such diseases as cancer should be allowed to choose their time of death. This is because cancer is the most common cause of death in Australia, history for more than a quarter of all deaths.There is major pain that is associated with cancer suffers and it is a severe and intractable form of chronic pain. Patients with advanced cancers often see multiple symptoms like fatigue, weakness, mental haziness, anxiety and nausea. Many of these symptoms can not be eliminated and any may widely affect the function of sense and well being. This can cause a major source of distress to the terminally ill and it can cause extremely unpleas ant symptoms, which are undignified in the terminal stage.This is where Euthanasia would be able to step in and with the request from the patient or their legal representative put a stop to their pain and suffering. I also agree that special guidelines must be put into stop abuse from families that may profit form the death of a person. In Australia the public opinion also supports Euthanasia being legalised. It is around three quarters of the population in Australia that are in favour of doctors giving or practicing Euthanasia if requested by a terminally ill patient who is experiencing unrelievable suffering.This is based on the responses to the Morgan Poll question If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering with absolutely no chance of recovery, asks for a lethal dose, so as not to wake again, should the doctor be able to give the lethal dose. In 1962 only 47% said yes. In 1993 78% and in 1994 and 1995 74% answered with yes. Now only 18% say no and another 8% are undecided. From this poll the people have stated that in some circumstances Voluntary Euthanasia should be allowed to be practiced.In a free society a person should be able to choose the time of their death if they are terminally ill. If we are to be truly living in a free society a person should be able to request their doctor to perform Voluntary Euthanasia if they are terminally ill. In not being able to request this means that we are not allowed too freely decide our own fate. I believe that Euthanasia should be legalised because if policed properly it can put a person out of intolerable suffering in which they will die in more pain anyway.At the present moment under some circumstances the public also agree that a patient should be able to request Voluntary Euthanasia to be practiced on them. It is also that a person should also be able to choose his or her own time of death if we are to be living in a fee society. If a person is allowed to legally refuse treatment that w ill in a consequence end their life, well why cant a person just be put out of intolerable suffering and achieve the same fate? Word Count 650