Euthanasia is the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition. So far, the Netherlands is the only jurisdiction in the world that permits euthanasia; it also permits assisted suicide The state of Oregon permits assisted suicide also. The difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia all comes down to the last act- the act without which the death wouldn’t have occurred. If a third party performs the last act that intentionally causes a patient’s death, euthanasia has occurred.
For example, giving a patient a lethal injection would be considered euthanasia. On the other hand, if the person who dies performs the last act, assisted suicide has taken place. So, it would be assisted suicide if a person swallows an overdose of drugs that has been provided by a doctor for the purpose of causing death. For A change to the law Many people today believe it is morally wrong to keep some one alive against their own will. I must say I have to agree. Some ask “Why are people forced to stay alive? ” The answer is they aren’t.Order now
A lot of people think that euthanasia is needed so patients won’t be forced to remain alive by being “hooked up” to machines. But the law states that patients or their families can refuse treatment even if it will increase the likelihood of the patient dying. But this isn’t enough. Even though the patient has the right to refuse treatment, it could still mean months of suffering before death. If euthanasia isn’t legalised then more innocent people will go to prison. For instance, imagine a fifty year-old woman whose husband is terminally ill with pancreatic cancer.
This is the most painful type of cancer. He asks her to end the pain, she does. She would then probably get a minimum two years minimum in prison. Then there’s the case of Tony Bland. Tony was injured in the Hillsborough tragedy of 1986. He suffered severe brain haemorrhaging and serious brain damage. He then fell into a condition called PVS or ‘Persistent Vegetative State’. This meant he could not move, he couldn’t breath unassisted, he couldn’t respond to touch, see nor hear. The man had to take food through a straw.
Although, blood was still pumping around his body and he was able to think. He was kept alive for three whole months before a ruling was passed at the House of Commons to put an end to his suffering. There were many things that could have been done to end it, a lethal injection, an overdose of sleeping pills – but no. Their solution was to starve him. This, for me, boldly underlines the frailties of the British Justice System. After all, euthanasia is practised illegally anyway so wouldn’t it be much better to legalise it so it can be performed under careful guidelines?
What’s more, to keep a person in agony unnecessarily is inhumane and cruel. I feel that anybody who opposes legalising euthanasia is either out of his or her mind or merely trying to impose his or her own religious beliefs upon others. Against A change in the law The point has been made by many people that legalising euthanasia would make it all the more easy for murders to take place undetected. This may be true as it would be extremely hard to put together a legal system of documentation that is entirely full proof.
If the patient wanted to die, what’s to stop them killing themselves? Much of the time it is the drugs the patient is prescribed which cause most of the discomfort and he or she does have the right to refuse treatment of any kind. It is quite obvious that there would be no way of creating a legal system that would work well. The government should not have the right to give one group of people e. g. doctors the power to kill another group of people e. g. their patients. Take into account how well one really knows his or her doctor. Would you trust him or her with your life?
Everybody remembers the Harold Shipman case. A doctor who over a period of around thirty-five years in the medical profession was convicted of killing over eighty of his patients with large doses of morphine. If he could do that with no law give doctors the right to practice euthanasia, think what he could do with a law in place! Euthanasia involves one person being instrumental in the death of another. This is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us.
There is enough cruelty in the world without giving the sadists more ground upon which to practice their pastimes. It has been suggested that euthanasia could be used as a form of ‘healthcare cost containment. ‘ This is a frightening prospect for then people could be forced into euthanasia for the sake of saving money. Laws against euthanasia and are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer.
I agree that it would be extremely difficult to formulate a justice system for euthanasia that actually works. But my essay wasn’t supposed to be about the new law that should be put in place; it was about the fact that the current law needs to change â€“ fast. We just can’t go on pretending that it will never happen to us because it will. We will all die someday, one out of every three in pain. Do you honestly want to be lying in your deathbed, terminally ill, in agony, thinking ‘I wish it could all just end now? ‘