euthanasia
...th; it is this oath, which places emphasis on the value of preserving life. And those who oppose euthanasia firmly believe that a doctor should never choose death over life. These persons strongly believes that the reason why medicine exists is to save lives, and if a doctor makes the choice of death over life the very basis for the practice of medicine is nullified. The second argument used by opponents of euthanasia is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic of human life being the ultimate value of existence. This argument stress that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every instance, thus euthanasia is wrong because it is killing before life would naturally end. It is a widely held view that human life is sacred and as such it is to be protected and preserved, regardless of the quality, by every means necessary. This assumption has given rise to many arguments against euthanasia. This religious argument, which applies to euthanasia, also in much the same way applies to suicide, the fact that in euthanasia the act is committed by a second person makes euthanasia even worse than suicide. The religious argument maintain that killing is killing regardless of the motive, and states that no one has the right to end anyone’s life, not even at their request. Christians argue that only god can create life and because of this only he should be the one to take a life. Thomas Aquinas a Christian condemned all forms of suicide as he believe that: (1) It violates one’s natural desire to live (2) It harms other people (3) Life is a gift from god and only to be taken by God The final argument given by opponents of euthanasia is the notion of a slippery slope in which legalized voluntary euthanasia will snowball and begin to result in widespread involuntary euthanasia. The basis for this reasoning is that under a system of voluntary euthanasia, doctors must make the final determination of whether a person can be euthanized or not therefore allowing them to decide if a patient’s life is "worth" living. Many feel that if doctors can do this to competent people, it could snowball to incompetent patients and doctors may choose euthanasia, without the will of patients. Many individuals believe that it is not morally right for a physician to assist in suicide. As there are also many who believe that if assisted suicide is legalized throughout the world, it will encourage families with terminally ill relatives to push them Prematurely to their demise. Two other important moral questions also arise from this issue. First, do our mortal lives belong to us alone, are we supreme ruler over our bodies, or do they belong to the communities of families in which we are embedded? Second, Will this right give the terminally ill a greater sense of control over their Circumstances, or will it weaken respect for life? Euthanasia will continue to become more of an issue. As with any moral issues, each viewpoint is supported by many reasons. Opponents also claim that euthanasia is against God, therefore it is unethical. The main argument for euthanasia is the argument that people ought to have the right to decide when their lives should end. Those who are in support of euthanasia argue that people should be able to choose death over life. Opponents of euthanasia believe that the word euthanasia is a fancy word for murder. Another argument for euthanasia is that people have the right to die with dignity rather than waste away and suffer until there is little left of their original character. This argument is especially true in the case of long-term debilitating and degenerative diseases such as cancer. “Death with dignity” has become a catch phrase used by euthanasia activists; campaigners for euthanasia often say that euthanasia would ensure that the patient dies a peaceful and dignified death. Death and dying in its prolonged state has the ability to take away the patients dignity. From the utilitarian perspective active euthanasia is morally permissible since it produces happiness, it has been widely held that it promotes the best interests for everyone. People have many reasons for wanting to end their lives, there are those persons who live in chronic pain due to a terminal illness and this terminal illness has adversely affected their quality of life to the point where they no longer wish to continue living. While there are also those persons who sees that they will be dying in the near future and simply want to have total control over the process. European writer Michael De Montaigne argues that suicide should be considered a matter of personal choice, and that it is a rational option under some circumstances. Those in favour of euthanasia believes that a person should not be forced to live, and there are neither law nor medical ethics which requires that “everything be done” to keep alive. Euthanasia proponents claim that it should be considered “medical treatment”. Euthanasia involves a death that is intended to benefit the person who dies, and requires a final act by the patient; this according to euthanasia activist is undertaken for the good of the patient. These persons believe that individuals should be able to evaluate their own lives and it’s quality through their own values and belief systems, in order to maintain a person’s dignity, the public has to respect these evaluations and allow individuals to act in accordance to their values. There are many sides to the dilemma of whether or not euthanasia should be carried out. There is the question of morality, the question of active versus passive euthanasia and the question of when euthanasia should be put into use. Yet when you look at the problem on a personal level with the actual individuals involved, it causes one to think twice about his stance on the issue. People are put on this earth to live, however When it gets to the point where the quality of a person's life gets so bad that they can no longer function in the world, there is no reason to force that person to stay alive. Euthanasia is therefore seen as the only solution for those whose practical life is in effect over due to a terminal illness or otherwise life devastating condition. If a person is in unbearable pain and close to death or is in a vegetable state and no longer able to function, their life is by all practical means over, There is no reason to keep them alive. The only way to end their physical life is by euthanasia. The question is whether to do this by way of active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Many are against active euthanasia because in this case you actually kill the person rather than letting them die. But both methods are used for the same end, which is to end someone's life without further pain for the patient as well as for the family. The only choice to make after this fact is established is which of these means better carries out the end. The problem with euthanasia lies in defining the conditions under which it would be carried out. Cases where depression or painful, though not terminal, diseases are involved should not have the option of euthanasia. These people can recover from their illnesses and go on to lead very fulfilling lives. Clear-cut cases would be those in which the patient has a terminal illness that causes them incredible pain, as they ...