The Legalization Of Euthanasia Law Essay

The Legalization Of Euthanasia Law EssayThe headland of life has been very intriguing over time and across space more specifically the question of when life begins and when life should end. With regard to when life should end, a lot of ethical nuances atomic number 18 faced- euthanasia in perspective. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek nomenclature eu and thanatos which respectively means good and death thus good death (Seamus and Shean 8). By extension, the term is also used interchangeably with roaring death and mercy killing among others. The questions which should linger everybodys minds should revolve around the true meaning of life and definition of the very moment it ends or rather should end. In addition, who should determine this particular moment when life begins and by what standards? Is euthanasia right or wrong? Above all, should it be ratifiedized? If yes wherefore and if no why? That is why Seamus and Shean (11) refer to it as a simple thing yet very compli cated.This paper explores the two divides of the subject on what occupations do the proponents and opponents of the exercise put in front and what is their basis. In essence, this write up tries to look at these arguments in a more critical sense and an informed conclusion is arrived at.According to Jennifer, Martha and Carolyn Roberts (1), euthanasia is each dynamic or passive active and passive in the sense that the magnitude of the actions deems them so. The latter(prenominal) involves indirect participation of the person administering care, for instance, of a cast off person, by means of among other things, stopping food supply (2). On the other contribute, active euthanasia is either voluntary, involuntary or non-voluntary in which the unhurried requests for it, the patient has non requested for it but is suffering too much (mercy killing) or the patient is non in a position to give consent about what they want. This frame of distinction is important since it shall g ive insights on what conditions should lead to reassert euthanasia. This is well seen in Contemporary Moral Problems in which White, James E. (11) distinguishes amid causing a persons death and letting a person die. He also talks of the duty to die.The big question is whether the act(s) discussed above should be legalized or allowed by law. The question of legalization or criminalization of euthanasia needs a multi-disciplinary approach that is combining perspectives in, for instance, Law, Theology and Philosophy (Otlowski, Margaret 187). Due to the sensitivity of the issue, a compromise between the perspectives of all disciplines, or at least the major ones, has to be arrived at. In practical terms, due to diverse philosophical, medical, theological and moral dispositions, unanimity may non be possible. But one thing is clear that modernity is a chief determinant of any position on euthanasia.The basic argument in support of euthanasia, especially the active voluntary euthanasia is that every person has the right to choose what they feel is best for them. According to Otlowski, Margaret (188), once a patient requests a doctor to perform euthanasia on them, then such doctor(s) should not be afraid of the exercise as it is not criminal- in this case. The causality argues that the law is discriminatory as long as it does not allow the principle of self-determination to hold for patients who are terminally ill. On the other hand the opponents of the claim assert that there can never be a genuine system of verification on whether a patient truly asked for it. Further, terminally ill patients may lack sobriety of mind to know what befits them. Therefore in this case, a doctor may, in law, perform euthanasia.Does an individual chip in a right to commit suicide? This question can lead us to an answer to yet another question on whether a patient is justified to request to be killed. Proponents argue that persons who assist others end their lives should not be co nsidered to have assisted in suicide because in Otlowski Margarets view, since the Common Law gives individuals just about constrained liberty (not right) to end their lives, then such persons should be free to seek related assistance if they are not able. In another perspective, euthanasia should not be outlawed because different human rights stipulations propose peoples right to fair treatment and non-subjection to degrading conditions (terminal illnesses). In addition, a perspective transcending human rights (in the state of legal rights) provides for peoples right to die. Consequently, States should have a duty to enforce this right. All persons should have a dignified death. Some people have argued that legal permissibility is preceded by moral uprightness and since whatsoever people consider euthanasia to be morally right, then it should be legally allowed. This argument is similar with the abortion argument that since abortions are already happening, they should be institu tionalized for safety purposes. In retrospect, euthanasia is no different.The case against the legalization of euthanasia has various reasoning directions. Opponents of euthanasia such as Sullivan and Kelly mainly use the doctrinal approach in which it is put that despite the circumstances, euthanasia is bad. This collection of reasoning includes, among others, the fact the human life is inviolable and human suffering adds value to life. The collectivity of reasoning based on pragmatism against legalization of euthanasia include the wedge argument, its effects on the society, uncertainty of a patients consent, the nuances involved in choosing the right criterion, a negligible need for euthanasia, that efforts on medical research are paralyzed and so on. In demystifying the above reasons, Otlowski Margaret has defined some good insights (212-246).The doctrinal thinking purports that human life is intrinsically valuable in which nobody gives this value. It is inherent in each person and nobody, including that sick person, has the discretion to take it away or influence such activity leading to its end. Regarding illness, persons should do their best to prolong others life. The Ten Commandments expressly prohibits intentional killing.In a more pragmatic perspective, legalization of euthanasia would lead to more social problems on life if it has not emanated from another life-ending exercise. In other words, countries which have legalized euthanasia had earlier legalized abortion thereby leading to more aged people who are economically handicapped and the need to reduce them. Such legal inclusion would further lead to rampant killings without genuine basis. This is popularly known as the wedge principle. It further stipulates that the pro-euthanasia side always has a hidden docket beyond the face value. In moral grounds, there is no difference between any kind of euthanasia including that which the proponents push for legal entrenchment that is active voluntary euthansia. Legalization of euthanasia would lead to more killings which are not accounted for since it is not always easy to verify whether indeed the disease was incurable and that silver to clear medical bills could not be afforded. The opponents of legal euthanasia purport that there is always possibility of error in diagnosis which would lead to asseveration that a disease would be incurable. Even if the diagnosis was correct, cure is always possible since in history, people claimed to be ever-ill have healed. Terminal illnesses are not the leading killer in the world and should not be included in the Law of the country. Instead, governments should spend much effort in trying to stop killer diseases like Malaria, Tuberculosis and AIDS. If euthanasia were to be legalized, there shall exist some tense relationship between doctors and patients who are very ill in fear that they cold be killed anytime thereby possibly dying of this fear. Above all, legalization of euthanasia woul d discourage medical research on cure to some serious diseases.In deciding whether to legalize euthanasia or not, several things should thus be put into consideration. In whatever is done, nobody should harm the other. In Libertarian Principle, the law should protect citizens from all harm and safeguard their interests and values. Legislators have to agree that there exists a relationship between moral and civil law because the latter was made possible by an innate consciousness that some things were right others wrong. While legalization of euthanasia sounds more liberal, the effects it has on the society are far much lethal.