Legalization of Euthanasia

Legalization of Euthanasia

Introduction

The Legalization of Euthanasia has been eliciting heated debates for a period close to a decade. The discussions have extended into the judicial system of the United States with several lawsuits filed either supporting or disregarding the act. This paper will be another form of extended debate. Euthanasia is the act only undertaken by physicians to intentionally end the life of a person at his or her request. Upon the request, the physician then administers a lethal substance to terminate life. Euthanasia is often confused to Physician-assisted Suicide (PAS). In PAS, a person administers the lethal subsistence himself upon the recommendation by a physician. Some countries like Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxemburg have legalized euthanasia. In these countries, all the legal, and social aspects were put into consideration to safeguard the practice to prevent any possible abuse. Euthanasia should be legalized in civilized societies to allow people die without pain, and in dignity with the assistance of others if they cannot do so.

Reasons for Legalizing Euthanasia

The right to die among the terminally ill patients is an issue of personal choice. Life is full of personal choices right from the onset of adulthood. In life, we can choose various things including our lifetime spouses, and the jobs we do. The same level of choice determination should traverse into a situation when somebody is terminally ill or too elderly (Pereira, 38). Everyone should have a choice about what happens to him or her. If we consider the conditions which warrant euthanasia, then it’s prudent to concur with its legalization. In Belgium for Example, two deaf twins had extreme emotional suffering, which prompted them to call for euthanasia in 2013 (Radbruch, 107). They had lived their entire lives, and could not bear any more endurance never seeing each other due to their condition. In this situation, the victims reached what they might have termed as the end of the road for their lives because they could not put with it anymore, and the condition would not change either. In such cases, euthanasia should be affected, hence the call for its legalization.

Euthanasia provides equal access to freedom for people who are unable to commit suicide (Pereira, 38). Therefore euthanasia should be legalized because it is an individual’s private decision, and does not harm others except those performing the act. Relatives and friends can be more tormented if their led one commits suicide than when the person asks for euthanasia. In most cases, suicide is also a personal decision where the reasons behind it can be accessed in notices after death or even go missing. All that surrounds the incident will be mere speculations. For euthanasia, the decision may be considered a formal decision involving accredited physicians. Therefore, it is easy to argue out a case on euthanasia than a suicidal case (Radbruch, 107). People who are unable to commit suicide should be given the go-ahead to request for euthanasia from the permitted physicians.

Euthanasia makes economic sense. Most people may consider it a shock to learn that economics aspect is factored into their decisions to live or die. While the argument is valid in most cases, we have to look at the expenses which come with the end of life (Radbruch, 116). In America for example, one of every five dollars meant for Medicare goes to the beneficiaries in the last year of their lifetime. The families for the terminally ill patients accrue crippling debts with the care of a single individual at the end of their life. For close to 35 percent of the US households, the bills exceed their family financial assets (Pereira, 38). Suppose the end-of-life care was worth the money, it might be acceptable. The objectives do not match the economic aspects under consideration. The invention of modern medicine prolongs life but destroys its quality. Doctors attest to the extremely high expenses incurred when a terminally ill patient is subjected to these life-support machine technologies, and modern medicine. End-Of-Life care is costly, nasty, brutal, and traumatic (Radbruch, 107). It becomes unrealistic to have terminally ill patients go through unnecessary sufferings to prolong their lives with an extra two months. More sense can be attributed to this assertion especially when such patients have expressed the will to rather die.

Euthanasia harms those who perform it. If the governments consider legalizing euthanasia, they must prevent the trauma which befalls euthanizes. Killing a fellow human being, whether they warrant it or not, has tremendous psychological impacts (Pereira, 38). The trained physicians who perform this procure regularly are at significant risk. Several studies have linked excessive drinking, and high suicide to the killing of humans. Additionally, from a theological perspective, it is wrong to take a person’s life. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the roles of the doctors, which is to save a life through treatment.

Conclusion

Civilized societies should legalize euthanasia because the right to die is a personal choice. Besides, it provides equal chances for those people who may have a debilitating illness, and consider suicide unethical in society. If a person wishes to die due to one reason or the other, he or she should be granted the chance to engage a physician for euthanasia. Euthanasia is also of economic sense since extending the lives of the terminally ill persons with just a month is traumatic, nasty, and incredibly expressive. However, the governments must consider putting the doctors who perform euthanasia under special care to avoid psychological disorders.