Facedown, unconscious, not breathing, and without a pulse. That was the state Terri Schiavo was in when she was found on February 25, 1990. Two months following being found, she emerged from a coma and was diagnosed as in persistent vegetative state. After fifteen agonizing years of being conscious but unaware of her surroundings, unable to have thoughts, memories, emotions, and feelings of pain or pleasure: her feeding tube was detached and she died from dehydration. This was due to the act of euthanasia. Schiavo and many others like her have no say in decisions of this kind, but it was for her own good. Was it right?
Deliberate methods of taking a patient’s life is labeled as active euthanasia, while an alternative procedure is known as passive. Passive euthanasia is more common as it is the act of removing or stopping certain measures that keep the patient alive. But the results are identical: a life ends. There are numerous highly vital reasons for why this should be legalized and why it should not. Although Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Thailand, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.S. states Washington and Oregon, the majority of the world has ruled it to be illegal. The brief list of countries authorizing euthanasia evidently indicates that the majority of the world governments concur that it shouldn’t be legal. There are very justifiable and powerful reasons for why they think so.
The Hippocratic Oath is a vow that every aspiring doctor is obliged to make, and practicing euthanasia would be opposing it. The oath plainly states “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for, nor will make a suggestion to this effect” which euthanasia clearly violates. With that being true, according this pledge “using the knife” is not entitled either; thus, surgery would be just as much of a violation. If surgery can be an exception, can euthanasia not be one?
The answer to whether this exception should be tolerated is clear; surgery is not designed to kill. Despite that fact that euthanasia is “mercy killing” and it is done to bring an end to all suffering and pain that a person and their loved ones are compelled to deal with, it is nevertheless the act of taking a life. On the other hand, while surgery is also carried out to put an end to suffering, it does not do so by eradicating everything. Undeniably, surgery is not always the ideal procedure and consistently effective, its intentions still are not to kill, but to heal.
Supporters of euthanasia proceed to explain how although euthanasia is extensively for the patients’ benefits, others can acquire from it. When a life is over, their body parts can be supplied to other people who are inclined to live and need a specific organ to continue living. Euthanasia has advantages regarding the economy as a whole. The shortage of hospital space, medical resources, doctors and nurses can be closer to being resolved, also providing new patients the possibility to utilize the supplies provided by medical care centers.
Removing those who are reliant on life support machines to create advantageous differences for others can be argued to be heartless and morally unjust. Similarly, religion is a substantial factor for why many believe that euthanasia should not be permitted. People believe that God has provided us our lives, and taking it away is going against Him. This also equips the doctors a chance to “play God,” and have excessive amounts of power, even though life is so sacred and valued. Following that, it is contended that when you are obliged to go, you will, and it should not be of your own choice, let alone someone else’s. Euthanasia is as much of a crime as murder; especially involuntary euthanasia which is carried out without the patient’s consent, even if they are not capable of voicing their opinion, is precisely what murder is.
The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek phrase “good death,” defining what some believe it to be. When a patient is physically suffering, unable to do anything they previously could, undergoing a colossal amount of emotional pain because of loss of independence, and feeling completely hopeless and helpless, the prospect to alleviate it should be given. The importance of this reason could be enough to convince people that euthanasia actually should be legalized around the world, but several others are mentionable. Another equally valid motive for allowing euthanasia is the rights that the patient has, where they can make their own choices about their own life, and that no one should be entitled to instruct them not to do something this critical.
The forceful belief voiced out by those who encourage euthanasia explain how a human undergoing pain will not have to endure it anymore with the act of euthanasia. But they might not have thought of this: what if someone thinks irrationally and resolves that they do not want to live anymore? There will definitely be occasions when people realize how much they yearn and ache for everything they formerly were competent of doing, and are now unable to withstand being in trapped conditions. This will conclude in people that are so infuriated with everything and uncaring of the consequences, deciding to select euthanasia as a way out. If euthanasia were legalized, a multitude of unnecessary deaths would occur. While the odds of discovering a cure for the majority of the illness that people suffer from are very low, there is still hope.
It is recognized that running away from your fears and problems does not solve anything. When it comes to euthanasia, merely clearing away people should not be used to solve misfortunes. The logical way to end this is to address the problems by obtaining a solution. Dr Richard Hillier, the chairman of the Association for Palliative Care regards palliative care a plausible alternative even if it is not a solution. This treatment provides a strong pain relief, enabling patients to live a standard life until their “natural” death. While this different possibility is not considerably more desirable than euthanasia, it is still a start. By initiating something like palliative care, a better and more suitable cure will soon be discovered.
1,021 adults were asked the question “Do you think it should be legal or illegal for doctors to help terminally ill patients commit suicide by giving them a prescription for fatal drugs?” by ABC News in 2002. 40% of the people believed that it should be permitted, and 48% of them said that it should be illegal. I am in agreement with 48% of the population. Euthanasia should not be legal. The majority of the population probably would not give it a second thought if someone asked them about their beliefs and opinions on euthanasia, as they might feel that it does not concern and affect them. It is unlikely that it ever will. But if a situation presents itself, evading the problem by getting rid of it is not correct; as it allows us to possess too much power, making us murderers, and removes any slight prospect of a better future for someone.