Why Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized

Why Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized

Introduction

Euthanasia is discriminative to the effects of the law and therefore is legal. In as much as scholars, authors, or prominent members in society would want to legalize it; it raised a lot of concerns, especially when looking at the impact it has on the victim as well as the beloved ones (Koodamara, Navin Kumar, et al., 963). Euthanasia denotes elements of ambiguity while applied in the current laws and as per the life safeguards, despite members such as Kailash Chand, in his article, “Why we should make euthanasia legal,” explaining why it should be legalized should be opposed as much as it can. Euthanasia has severe side effects that disrespect the Human Rights Law of Prevention against Cruelty. The core objective of this essay is to discuss why euthanasia should not be legalized, no matter the cost!

While regulatory control, among other explanations, has been initiated as to why euthanasia should be legalized in addition to other “end life choices, euthanasia is immoral. Even if the patient is willing to die, an adult, of mentally competent as well as in severe pain, at no given point, should it be legalized. Humane choices, for instance, have been added to propose the act; however, to me, the goal of the medical professional remains saving lives and never at the expense of compassion is allowing the acutely ill patient to end their life or rather die with dignity. Regardless of the type, whether indirect, passive, active, or physical assisted suicide, should never be allowed. And, in as much as active euthanasia allows room for direct administration basically of the legal substance in a merciful intent should be opposed.

Euthanasia in Greek means “euthanatos,” which refers to “easy death” and that it is highly the right to assisted suicide. In other words, it is an act of allowing patients who are in severe pain to end their lives by not living wrong. A statement explained by Dr. Kailash Chand while proposing a motion in Conference in Liverpool to The British Medical Association (Chand Kailash, 30). He emphasizes how making people live while they have refused is only a violation of their human rights to freedom of choice. Instead, live in a world full of pain and suffering.

Doctors in their various fraternity have explained how difficult it is for physicians to cope in cases associated with euthanasia. Primarily, 16% have reported psychological burden in the act of euthanasia. And, even while working in PAS, they have adversely been affected, and that has been witnessed in their medical practices. Doctors in the European nations have additionally emphasized how euthanasia and PAS provoke negative emotions in the line of duty. Other than thinking about euthanasia, it is essential to think about palliative care that can contain the severe feelings patients received, causing depression in relation to different outcomes (McGee, Andrew, 6). Reported have indicated how, in some instances, people who have wanted to end their lives change their cognitive when the signs and symptoms are engaged. In the long run, they tend to have painful deaths.

Focusing on the family members, unnatural causes of death such as suicide has to lead to a severe type of grief to them. Euthanasia, for example, facilitates traumatic grief to such families due to unexpected deaths. In other words, euthanasia, other than having outcome to the individual and medical fraternity, has an impact on the family members, which negatively affects their social, psychological, and physical well-being. Correspondingly, historical as well as religious arguments have reported that allowing euthanasia will only result in adverse outcomes. For example, staring slippery slopes will lead to involuntary euthanasia, facilitating the killing of people who are considered undesirable.

In as much as slippery though slope arguments are facilitated and that such incidences while saving on health care cost as well as saving money for family members, in the long run, euthanasia raises a lot of concerns connected to devaluing human lives, raising religious and ethical issues as well as the corruption of the worst minds. Committing suicide is an act that one should remain nobody (Nobis, Nathan, 78). Therefore, it is a fundamental mistake based on human relations. It is failing to see the dignity of a person as it killing and that it weakens sanctity respect of life by the society. It is am implementation that life is worthless and that acts such as involuntarily euthanasia are linked to the inconsiderable act of a person’s interest.

In conclusion, euthanasia should remain illegal as an instance of palliative care has turned out, making unnecessary. It is an act that cannot be fully regulated and that encouraging it will facilitate incidences of less good care for patients with a terminal illness. Besides, allowing euthanasia will only discourage the continuous search for treatments or cures for terminally ill conditions. It is essential to focus on the motivation for good care regardless of the patient’s condition, such as if perhaps they are in pain relief or dying. It is an act that profoundly exposes vulnerable groups from ending life pressures.

Works Cited

Chand Kailash; why we should make euthanasia legal. (2009): 23-34

Koodamara, Navin Kumar, et al. “Euthanasia: Indias major religious points of view.” Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development 9.10 (2018): 962-965.

McGee, Andrew. “Why Bob Hawke is wrong about euthanasia.” Sydney Morning Herald 17 (2016): 4-10

Nobis, Nathan. “Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing.” (2019): 28-90.