A Rhetorical Analysis of Kailash Chand’s,”Why we should make euthanasia legal.”
Introduction
In his article, “Why we should make euthanasia legal published July 2009 in the Guardian, Kailash Chand states that there should be an introduction of new legalization to allow terminally ill people the choice of an assisted death. He starts by explaining how mentally competent beings should have the option of assisted dying and that the law should not criminalize people who support human beings make rational decisions to end their sufferings. His article further goes on by explaining how there are a couple of patients in terrible battles with incurable conditions who deliberate to end their suffering. He cannot condone denying rights to patients with prolonged illness to end their suffering. The rest of his article is devoted to explaining why euthanasia should be legalized.
Kailash Chand’s article tries to persuade the audience that they must enact legislation that fully decriminalizes physical-assisted suicide or euthanasia activities. He further explains why the laws can be changed. He believes the law emphasizes, “Prevention of Cruelty and Protection of Human Rights,” therefore allowing terminally ill persons to end their lives is humane and that it is not only rational but a compassionate choice. He adds, “The current prohibits and requires a person with great physical and mental suffering to continue to endure their suffering against their wishes, which cannot be right.” In other words, it is essential to interpret the law broadly precisely on the right to family and private life and the universal life itself. It is vital to include choices based on the quality of life in addition to decisions of death in cases where it is never a sense of quality. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Furthermore, it is crucial to consider aspects of Regulatory Control. In his article, Kailash Chand explains who terminally ill every day are traveling abroad where the Right to end life is recognized. Regulating the foreign lands’ laws could be devastating, which indeed is true. Euthanasia regulation can only work best if it is implemented from home. It is simpler to control and supervise regulated laws within the countries’ boundaries. He argues that as much as the nation has not made it legal, it should not, at any given point, prosecute loved ones who are encouraging assisted suicide of terminally ill people by traveling around the world to end their lives lawfully.
Kailash Chand’s argument in his article remains reasonable when he even further explains the ambiguity implementation and application of the current laws. Primarily, existing laws have been reported to conflict with those enforced. He believes, if the written rules were being executed, thousands of people must have been prosecuted for escorting their loved ones to commit euthanasia. It lives every group concerned, including physicians. Let’s not forget its discriminatory effects on the law. The majority of people traveling abroad are wealthy. Mentally competent beings are severely traveling abroad to end their own lives. It is indeed a discriminatory outcome which leaves the rest unequally.
He argues furthermore on the “safeguards connected to euthanasia. In as much as many people are opposing the legalization of euthanasia, the majority of persons who are terminally ill receives specific safeguard conditions. The vulnerable are highly protected, and even as they might end up expressing their right to die with dignity, the core necessities for the acts to be taken are considered. Among the safeguarding conditions involved according to Kailash Chand are, “The patient must be terminally ill, be an adult, be mentally competent and be in severe pain. Therefore, implementing acts of euthanasia should be legalized as they provide safeguarding conditions.
Apart from that, physicians carrying out euthanasia act must be satisfied that all conditions are available. Generally, the only humanitarian action is to provide room for terminally ill patients to make their own choices as to why they should end their suffering. Furthermore, there are cases of discrepancies in the existing laws that result in uncertainties (Wharton, Lauren, 30). In most cases, as discussed in the article is that those uncertainties have left patients and their loved ones and doctors in unprotected outcomes. To Kailash Chand, “if we do not address these issues openly and head-on, we will have continued uncertainties and unregulated practices of euthanasia or assisted suicide with the fear of prosecution hanging over the heads of all concerned.”
In conclusion, the medical professional goal should remain on saving lives but should not be limited to expenses of compassion. Terminally ill human beings have the right to choose to end their lives or rather to die with dignity. Besides, euthanasia stratifies the criterion that moral rules should be universal and as explained by Kailash Chand, in incidences where the dependant does not generate pressure, their right to choose should be paramount. Provides they are mentally competent, an adult, in severe pain, and terminally ill. Civilized society, for instance, should give room for people to die in dignity, and if they are not in a position, they should allow others to help them. It is immoral to force an individual to live in suffering and pain.
Works Cited
Chand Kailash; why we should make euthanasia legal. (2009): 23-34. https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jul/01/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-uk
Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. “Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe.” Jama 316.1 (2016): 79-90.
Wharton, Lauren. “Should Euthanasia be legalized in England and Wales? Interpreting John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle.” The Student Journal of Professional Practice and Academic Research 1.1 (2019): 28-38.