The Pros and Cons of Legalising Euthanasia

Canada is often cited by those concerned about medically assisted euthanasia as evidence of a “slippery slope.” The Medical Assistance in Dying Act (MAID) was introduced in 2016 for adults with medical conditions whose death is reasonably foreseeable – expected within 6 months. It was expanded to include people with serious but non-fatal chronic physical illnesses in 2021 and will be made available to people with severe chronic mental illness in 2023. Currently, the possibility of living wills for people with dementia is being explored, which eliminates the ability to make decisions. 3. Physicians play a minimal role in the modern euthanasia process. One of the reasons society might be against the idea of euthanasia is because of the actions of people like Dr. Jack Kevorkian in the past. Instead of allowing people without risk of death to commit suicide under supervision, the Death with Dignity Acts, passed in the United States, allow for the voluntary participation of doctors. Even if you live in a place that allows this process, such as Washington State or Oregon, you don`t need to perform this action. 1.

We use euthanasia as a last resort when all other options are not on the agenda. The average person or doctor will not support the proactive end of a life if there is no associated suffering. Euthanasia is different from suicide, even though both acts end a life because the former seeks help and the latter does not. The goal of this aid is to end the suffering of a long death, especially if chronic and severe pain is included in the process. Opponents argue that normalizing euthanasia would be a philosophical inclination toward legalized murder. This “slippery slope is real,” said James Mildred of Care (Christian Action Research and Education), who campaigns against assisted suicide. In a 2018 article in The Economist, Mildred cited “a steady increase in the number of people killed or driven to suicide by their doctors” in countries that have legalized assisted suicide. It is “only a matter of time” before the euthanasia criteria are expanded, he added. Many believe that legalizing euthanasia could encourage doctors to abuse their position because it would give them too much power. This can lead to unfair situations that cannot be reversed. Some thinkers cite the Hippocratic Oath as the reason medical professionals shouldn`t help with suicides.

According to them, this basic principle of medicine clearly states that doctors should not harm their patients. However, the promise, created more than 2,000 years ago, does not reflect the intricacies of modern end-of-life care. Hippocrates` contemporaries were unable to prolong life, mainly because they lacked relevant knowledge and tools. Moreover, their sense of morality does not reflect many of the current views. Their views on women`s rights, slavery and many other issues are no longer common, and they should no longer see the responsibility of doctors. After all, there is no longer a single version of the Hippocratic Oath. In fact, many countries and even medical schools within a country use their own versions that reflect their values, allowing modern doctors to adapt the wording to express their views on euthanasia. Supporters of legalizing euthanasia protest in London last October No one should ever go through a situation where they feel their doctor is trying to persuade them in the euthanasia process. Physicians must have the option to opt out of this program, just as a patient deserves a second option. This is not a slippery argument.

The first medical malpractice lawsuit during the administration of euthanasia took place in 2018. When the Dutch passed their laws in 2002, there was no provision stating that the patient had to be capable at the time of administration of the drug. There are even cases where parents call doctors to put their mentally ill children to sleep. If a person in an altered condition or a patient with a developmental disability submits a written request for euthanasia, it will be rejected due to lack of competence. Some jurisdictions also require the presence of two witnesses, and they cannot be a relative or someone who would benefit from an inheritance. As director of prosecutors, Keir Starmer gave the green light to a charge of attempted murder against Kay Gilderdale, whose daughter died in 2008 after being paralyzed by myalgic encephalomyelitis, better known as chronic fatigue syndrome. Kay was acquitted of attempted murder charges in 2010. We must not forget that the legalization of euthanasia is not a guaranteed outcome. If someone makes that decision and it doesn`t work out as intended, it puts them and their doctor in an almost impossible situation. Do you continue to treat the disease? Or are you trying to help that person end their life again? If I had terminal cancer, I would have a few weeks to live, I would have tremendous pain – if only they would actually turn off the switch and legalize this by legalizing euthanasia, I would want it. Of all the arguments against voluntary euthanasia, the most influential is the “slippery slope”: once we allow doctors to kill patients, we can no longer limit murder to those who want to die. The pros and cons of euthanasia must also consider the physician, the patient`s family, and others involved in the decision.

If someone is mentally fit and wants to do it this way instead of hoping for a miracle, then this option can help them make it a reality. Medically assisted suicide and euthanasia are profound ethical questions that physicians have faced since the birth of Western medicine more than 2,000 years ago. These numbers have been consistent in the United States since 2002, when the first steps of the Death with Dignity Act were taken. The results are similar to what Europe has experienced since the 1990s with its actions in this area. Of course, people who are nearing the end of their lives are not monoliths and show a variety of opinions on the subject of assisted suicide. Some cite religious views to oppose this practice. For example, a survey by Sharp (2019) shows that those who believe in life after death are much less likely to have positive views about euthanasia. Nevertheless, these findings only mean that religious people themselves should not be subjected to euthanasia, not that it should not be an option for the general population. Health care professionals should consider spiritual beliefs when consulting with patients and their families. However, the theological concerns of some people are not sufficient to impose a blanket ban on the practice. Euthanasia could free up medical resources.

With the improvement of technology, people today spend a lot on high-tech healthcare, even in desperate cases. If euthanasia is seen as a choice, no money would be spent on this kind of impasse and the machines could be used by other patients in urgent need.