Introduction
Euthanasia, a morally ambiguous medical issue, is one of the most contentious topics in medicine. Is the most troubling question a denial of life as a result of a crime or an unpunishable act? These questions have different responses depending on the country. On the one hand, the critical question is why a state decides to authorize this type of life deprivation. On the other hand, people suffer the same dilemma when a legislator has the other perspective. In this work, I will demonstrate my position regarding the legalization of euthanasia as an inalienable right to life for everyone.
Background
Response to the controversy of the topic of euthanasia and, more lately, physician-assisted suicide are limitless sources of study and observation on various medical and moral issues. According to some scholars, this argument is one of the ten most divisive moral concerns and a significant issue in national and international health policy (Banović 8). I believe that direct active euthanasia is a medical technique that ends in a person’s death, passing over the meanings of these two well-known expressions at this point. Physician-assisted suicide, on the other hand, is when a doctor offers a patient medicine to help them end their lives.
The Legal Part of the Question
When the man became interested in euthanasia for the first time is unknown. In 1906, when Ohio attempted to pass a measure legalizing euthanasia, several disputes erupted in the United States and the United Kingdom (Banović 7). Movements to legitimize the ADE and PAS have marked the preceding several decades. However, it is worth mentioning that governments throughout the world are more prepared to legitimize PAS as a less severe kind of life deprivation. This is especially evident on the American continent, where PAS is legal in a few states. On the other hand, the Supreme Court determined that ADE and PAS had no constitutional right to exist, and so outlawed them.
Similar to this, there have been scathing criticisms of efforts to eliminate criminal penalties for individuals who assist in the deprivation of a terminally ill patient’s life at his request. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians’ constant movements from open antagonism to neutrality and back, for example, indicate how difficult it is for them to accept any attitude toward terminating one’s life and retain any consistent opinion.
The Choice of a Dignified Death
In my opinion, the choice of a dignified death is intrinsically linked to ethical and moral considerations. Due to the harsh characteristics of some legal systems, the law and morality may not always stand in the essential, universal relationship, albeit this should be as rare as possible. Another essential question highlighted by the academics is whether moral and ethical behaviour may be outlawed if deemed immoral by the law.
However, I think that moral standards are more significant than legal rules if the premise is that the law is only a bare minimum of morality. As a result, when a legislator controls ADE and PE, he should make no distinction between the two because their weight is the same (Banović 3). The existence or lack of moral disparities between murdering and allowing a patient to die from sickness symptoms, as well as between ADE and PAS, stands out among the many difficulties presented by euthanasia.
These authors are categorized as either radicals or moderates at the same time. The moderate position rejects the premise of ADE’s moral legitimacy and legal regulation. The authors of the extreme stance, on the other hand, are fiercely opposed to euthanasia and the taking of human life in any form. Human life is sacred, and it is the work of God. On the other hand, human life is only valuable when the brain is functioning. This statement expresses support for the legalization of euthanasia as a fundamental right to life for all people. My position concerning the issue aligns with the opinions and suggestions of the mentioned authors.
Civilizations have shared the philosophical belief that biological life is no more important than human life since Confucius’ time. Supporters of ADE and PAS believe that these practices are not inherently immoral, mainly when the patient is in terrible pain (Banović 7). According to the research, many pain instances can be managed in the best-case scenario, but only a few aches can be painful and unmanageable. In medical practice, experts encounter patients who cannot control or reduce their agony.
Conclusion
The preceding statements demonstrate how absurd it is to see euthanasia as an immoral procedure. I believe that patients’ needs and desires should take precedence over doctors’ and even politicians’ aspirations. Concern for people’s well-being, consideration for their demands, adherence to their fundamental values, and consideration for their goals are more and actually significant. As a result, I suppose that direct active euthanasia is a medical technique that ends in a person’s death, passing over the meanings of these two well-known expressions at this point.
Work Cited
Banović, Božidar et al. “An Ethical Review of Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide.” Iranian Journal of Public Health vol. 46, no. 2, 2017, pp. 173-179.