In Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader in the election campaign

case that today we kill terminally ill patients who urge to die, will we
tomorrow kill terminally ill patients who don’t yet wish to bite the dust,
however who are utilizing valuable restorative assets in a period when society
is attempting to pay for therapeutic care? These are the worst evil form of the
human being. On the off chance that a patient can choose, no one other than
that patient ought to have the authority to quit the life or proceed.
Euthanasia is a one of a kind schedule with respects to completion the life of
a person encountering a terminal sickness or a genuine condition by strategies
for the suspension of exceptional helpful treatment or dangerous injection. The
historical backdrop of this wonder backpedals to hundreds of years when the
principal bill to legitimize euthanasia in America was introduced in the Ohio
legislature in the year of 1906. Nevertheless, then, in 1991 the Washington
State Initiative Bill legalizing voluntary euthanasia was smashed and the
following year kept the specialists from prescribing deadly medications. ”I
was upset that the Oregon law legalizing assisted suicide targets terminally
ill patients who suffer from depression and those who worry about being a
financial burden to their relatives”, said by the Presidential candidate,
Ralph Nader in the election campaign of 2000. Thus, euthanasia would not only
be for persons who are “terminally ill.”

in Greek means easy death and is categorized into four genera that is
‘voluntary’ versus ‘involuntary’ and ‘active’ versus ‘passive’ (GA Ogunbanjo
& D Knapp van Bogaert, 2013). Active euthanasia is when death is achieved
by an act of proving, for example when a man ends by being given an overdose of
torture executioners.  Passive euthanasia
is when death is brought around by exclusion. It insinuates a demonstration of
allowing a tireless to pass on representation not offering antimicrobials to a
terminally debilitated persevering who has secured pneumonia. Voluntary
Euthanasia communicates the conditions in which persevering with sensible point
of view requests or offers to take their own lives particularly or by declining
some sort of treatment excessively consolidate their relatives, making it
impossible to take the decision for their advantage concerning their lives. Euthanasia
is frequently blended up or associated with helped suicide, the distant cousin
of mercy killing, in which a man needs to perform suicide, be that as it may,
feels unfit to play out the exhibit alone on account of a physical impedances
not being present of learning about the best means. Euthanasia
supporters accept as true that since a terminally ill patient being bed ridden,
it is better to cut the torment and allowing him to pass on delicately and with
“pride”. This paper will discuss the reasons of Euthanasia should not
be legalised as it causes too many negative issues.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

people should have equal rights and chances to live great lives and numerous
people with incapacities appreciate living. If a patient is competent to
decide, nobody other than that patient must have the authority to decide
whether life is worth continuing (D.benatar, 2010). The decision making should
not be in someone’s hands as the rights to live is not determined by them. The
right to die requires clarification. It need not be a right to assist in
closing one’s spirit. Instead, it needs only quantity to a right not to be
prevented from gaining assistance in termination one’s sprightliness. The main
cause of this is immoral actions of family members which lack responsibilities.
Well, John
Pridonoff, state in “The Law and Dr. Kevorkian,” Time Lines, (1994), there
is a circumstance of Doctor Jack Kevorkian’s ‘clients’, which is Christy’s
mother, a while afterward uncovered the diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
was erroneous. The post-mortem examination disclosed that her mother does not
have such sicknesses and, in case she got looked for after the second view
rather than mercy killing, her mother may be alive today. There can be pressure
from family to choose non-voluntary euthanasia for economical and inheritance
reasons. Loved ones may be unable to deal with what they see as the anguish of
the family member. While considering non-voluntary euthanasia the redress
movement at the time, a few may regret their choice at an afterward time
provoking questionable torment stricken. Even though it is tremendous to the
person who is taking care of the patients, but instead of trying to take a
simple way and goofy decision will never be the right solution.

early circumstances, the medical profession has had a strong sense of duty with
respect to ethical conduct in proficient practice. Euthanasia violates
historically accepted codes of medical ethics. It is more known as voluntary
euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia another person, normally a doctor,
administers a lethal dose after he is sure that the patient has consented. It
may deliver as well as much power to doctors. This line of reasoning often
appears as ‘physician should not be allowed to play God’. Of all the arguments
against voluntary euthanasia, the most influential is the ‘slippery slope’
which mentioned by Peter Singer, Australian Philosopher that once we allow
doctors to kill patients; we will not be able to limit the killing to those who
want to die. As long as doctors recognize the seriousness of euthanasia and
take decisions about it within a properly regulated structure and with proper
safeguards, such decisions should be acceptable. However, in some case,
intentional killing is dangerous and opens the door to abuse. It is totally
atrocious and unimaginable how the doctors will practice this in the future
generation. Euthanasia gives someone the right to kill others with an excuse to
free them from the dying patients, plus “were sufferers, they were
helpless, they were hopeless, and they were burdens.”(Ervin, 2002, para.
5) .Considering that the legalization of euthanasia will climb serious moral
and social return, the legitimation of it will surely cause tremendous
catastrophic effects in society. Though it is volunteered by the patients
itself, it still breaks the ethics of medics while killing action without
intention is also categorized as a murder.

the same sense of case (voluntary cases Euthanasia), Euthanasia is needless due
to various existing alternative treatments. Patients who are fighting with
their diseases weaken once there is a legal law of Euthanasia. People always
take life for granted and make this as the easiest way to take them out from
their problems, even for the smallest simple thing, they will choose to end
their lives. Difficulties in life are actually making life even valuable. There
is a phrased that is related to this and are used to be said by people: ‘when
there is life, there is hope’. Euthanasia seems does not solve the problem, in
fact, it denies hopes in life and the nature of human willpower, thus destroys
the phrased used to be said. It is also taking the opportunity for the patients
being stronger and tougher when fighting with their illness. Current palliative
medicine research findings show that almost all uncomfortable symptoms faced
with terminal illness can be driven away from existing treatments.  As an example of voluntary Euthanasia based
on a true story, a 14-years-old Chilean girl suffering from terminal cystic
fibrosis asked for the permission from the president of her country to end her
life. Besides that, there is another case of the same type of Euthanasia, which
a retired French teacher was diagnosed with esthesioneuroblastoma (a large face
tumour) refused any treatment and chose to end her life with illegal Euthanasia
drugs. GA Ogunbanjo & D Knapp van Bogaert (2013) claim that euthanasia cannot
be morally justified unless it gives advantages to the person who dies, but as
long as the intention is death, it is killing. There are always have a much
better options to create a society which is focusing more on health, and
welfare. In most cases, Euthanasia is actually unnecessary (does not matter voluntary,
involuntary, or non-voluntary), but this fact is rarely known by people because
lack of necessary knowledge of their diseases and the obscure choices given to

the other case, Euthanasia is acceptable and can only be used when all
applicable treatments have come to an end, plus all other survival and cure
options have been exhausted. According to Strinic, when all medical treatments
have failed, then Euthanasia should only be the last resort (2015). He goes on
to the supports that Euthanasia not only ends suffering, it is also giving them
the choice of freedom in their death decision, and last but not least, being
able to die with dignity. There is a question where people always think about:
why we need to prolong someone’s suffer while we know they are unbearable? It
is true that if we can put ourselves in their shoes, certainly we can feel the
agony they are going through. But it does not mean that they can simply end
their lives or someone else’s life only based on that. People will never know
what their future lives are waiting. Therefore, we should give the best in our
life, thus other’s too. There is a case where a patient asked her physician to
end her life, yet the physician reluctant doing that because he saw there are
still hopes for her. However, her daughter had more interest in ending her
mother’s life. From this case, it seems that the system is easily being abused
and people are misusing it for personal purpose. It is OK to ask for
Euthanasia, but before make any decision, please do double think. Is that pain
so unbearable, vegetative, or is it just a burden of sadness? Rethink. No
matter what, it is always not a good thing to deny the worthwhile existence of
human beings.

a nutshell, euthanasia sure will tear up the divider and is going roughly as it
can cause for massive death. This is actually the phenomena that we endeavour when
comes to dealing with fear of death. Thus, if helping suicide for people that
have the terminal health problems is legalized, the so-called “to pass
away” is more than likely in practice to become “duty to pass
away.” The best possible way to deal with individuals with
incapacities is to give them suitable help, not to kill them. The nature of a
man’s life shouldn’t be evaluated by other people. The personal satisfaction of
a man with incapacities is by giving appropriate first help. A
few believe that wilful killing should to be executed and authorized however
you ought to think almost that the learning, culture, and feelings can be
traded for a long time to hundreds of a long time. In short, euthanasia should
not be legalized.