Why euthanasia should not be legal essay

Euthanasia is a word that comes from ancient Greece and it refers to “good death”. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away people’s lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. This essay will focus on comparing positive and negative aspects of euthanasia in order to answer to the question whether euthanasia should be legal or not. There exist three different types of euthanasia: active,…show more content…
There would be some cases when doctors will take into consideration the financial situation of the patient while deciding whether to apply euthanasia or not. For example if a patient cannot afford to pay for the continuous health treatment an immoral behavior of doctor would be suggesting euthanasia in order to save some money from this patient’s treatments. It is unethical and immoral of doctors to behave so but we should certainly consider it as a possible alternative. Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious. Legalizing euthanasia would cause a very huge despair and depression for the relatives of the deceased person. The family would feel responsible and depressed when taking the decision whether or not their family member should continue living. By legalizing euthanasia and its applications it will bring undesirable and unforgettable feelings for the

Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp  

Kilner, Miller, & Pellegrino, (1996) stated that “euthanasia can be categorized as active euthanasia which involves willfully taking positive steps to terminate life, passive euthanasia entails deciding not to take the positive steps to prolong life. Each of these can be voluntary or involuntary.

I firmly believe that euthanasia should not be implemented or legalized for the following reasons:

First of all, in the concept of life and death, wherein Buka (2008) commented that “the definitions of ‘life’ and ‘death’ are subject of debate throughout healthcare professional frameworks.” There are both ends of the spectrum meaning on the one hand, preservation of life and on the other hand, allowing death or ‘letting go’, if not assisting or hastening the end. In either case, there is a potential conflict of interests, between the patient’s best interests versus those of society as a whole (Buka, 2008). Approval of an ethical framework for decision-making is necessary for healthcare professionals such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and fairness (Beauchamp and Childress, 1997).

Euthanasia from these principles may cause by someone’s own actions or action of others (Buka, 2008). An example of own actions is refusal of treatment, may result in termination of life.

In the case of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) 4 ALL ER 649, CA

A pregnant woman aged 20 had suffered critical injuries in a road accident. The victim had a heamorrhage that cause a stillborn baby. She had been 34 weeks pregnant and, on admission, had consented to a caesarean section. Her mother was a strict Jehovah’s Witness had then influenced her daughter who (Ms. T) subsequently told doctors that she objected to a blood transfusion. Her boyfriend and her father on the hand objected and sought a judicial review allowing a blood transfusion as a life-saving measure. Held by the court of appeal (Lord Donaldson’s judgment) that:

Her mental capacity to choose whether to accept a blood transfusion or not have been impaired by her injuries.

She had lacked sufficient information to make an informed (rational) decision to accept or refuse treatment.

Undue pressure from her mother may have influenced her subsequent decision to appear to reject a blood transfusion.

The courts could not apply the ethical principle of autonomy under these circumstances and ordered a transfusion to be given to Ms. T without her consent.

Secondly, in the mental symbol of right, Right is defined by Griffith and Tengnah (2009) as an interest recognized and protected in law. Buka, 2008 suggested that the law on human rights take into account the fact that every patient is entitled to life (Article 2, Human Rights Act 1998); hence this has been used as a basis for litigation to assert that right.

Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by the law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which his penalty is provided by the law.

Article 2, Human Rights Act 1998

The principle of the sanctity of life can be seen in the case of Pretty v The United Kingdom (European Court on Human Rights), Application no. 2346/02, Strasbourg, April 29, (2002).

In this particular case, a woman in the end stages of motor nuerone disease wanted to seek immunity for her husband on assisting her to take her own life for her to die with dignity. The House of Lords held that article 2 gave rise to preservation of human life, not a right to die, and that sanctity of life required by article 2 could not permit the intentional intervention to human life (Buka, 2008).

Lastly, although the law considers the right to liberty (Article 3, Human Rights Act 1998) and the doctrine of consent in high regard there are certain limitations by both common law and statute (Griffit, & Tengnah (2009). An individual may not take or consent an action that would cause their death, and physician or doctor who assisted a patient even there is consent would suffer a charge of murder (Montgomery, 1997).

Euthanasia is murder in the UK (Buka, 2008). This is supported by the case of Regina v Cox (1932) 12 BMLR 38.

In this circumstance, a 70-year old Mrs. Boyes’ suffered from severe arthritis with severe pain for several years, which was not controlled by pain killers. She wished her consultant, Dr Cox for active voluntary euthanasia. Dr Cox purposely injected her with a lethal dose potassium chloride, when she reminded him that he had promised not to let her suffer. The judge initially charged him with murder. But she was cremated before the case was brought to the attention of the police, it was not authenticated that the potassium was determinant of death. So that doctor was only condemned of attempted murder.

The legal basis of the decision of the judge is Article 2, Suicide Act 1961 stated that

A person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall be liable on conviction on indictment in imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

It is also forbidden to assist a patient to die (Buka, 2008).”This protects the vulnerable from being encouraged to take their own by unscrupulous relatives, friends, or health professionals” as stated by Griffith, & Tengnah, (2009).

In general, there are many factors should be carefully think about in the concept of euthanasia such as religion, legal, medical views and any other aspects. Some believe that euthanasia should be implemented and legalized but you must consider that the knowledge, culture and beliefs can be transferred from years to centuries. Furthermore, life preservation is an enormous task by each and everyone. On the other hand, we must respect each other’s beliefs and opinions for the sake of love and peace. It is of preponderance to instill it among the young generations, because the youth today will be the bridge of past and present to the future.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp  

Euthanasia is a word that comes from ancient Greece and it refers to “good death”. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away people’s lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. This essay will focus on comparing positive and negative aspects of euthanasia in order to answer to the question whether euthanasia should be legal or not. There exist three different types of euthanasia: active, passive and voluntary. Active euthanasia refers to the process of injection of painkillers and sleeping pills in order to reduce the time of suffering of a patient by making his death less painful. On the other side, voluntary euthanasia refers to the case of the conscientious patient, who voluntarily demands from the doctor to give up on treatments. In this case the patient is conscious that he will die soon and regardless that stops the treatments. In my discussion related to whether euthanasia should be legalized or not I will refer only to active and voluntary euthanasia arguments. There are many negative aspects of legalizing euthanasia. One of the important negative factors would be the power that the doctor has in deciding about the patient’s life. As it is written in the book “A natural law ethics approach”, legalizing applications of euthanasia’s forms are attributing the doctors the role of God (Paterson 28-29). As a result, it becomes doctor’s decision for the patient, for h... ... middle of paper ... ...e most important prize that the God gave us, and no matter how long we are going to live, no matter in what conditions we’ll live, we have to live it to the end. Works Cited 1. “The basic definitions.” Types of euthanasia. 20 Nov. 2001. http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/types.htm. Web. 12 Dec. 2010 2. Paterson, Craig. A natural law ethics approach. Burlington,Vermont: Ashgate Publishing, 2008. 28-29. Print. 3. “Religion and Spirituality.” Death with Dignity National Center. N.p., 2007. http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/religion.as. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. 4. O’Reilly, Kevin. “Assisted-suicide statute challenged by 2 Connecticut doctors.” Discovery Institute (2009). Print 5. Young, Robert. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. N. pag. University of Stanford. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/. Web. 10 Dec. 2010.