Right to Die: It Is Better to Die Than to Survive with Pain

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Right to Die: It Is Better to Die Than to Survive with Pain

While killing someone in an attempt to defend self is acceptable by law, mercy killing is seen as an act that is highly immoral in nature. The motive of euthanasia is to aid-in-dying painlessly and thus should be considered positively by lawmakers.

Euthanasia should be a natural extension of a patients rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death. Continuing life support scheme alongside the patients desire is measured as immoral by law as well as medicinal beliefs. If the sufferer has the right to cease treatment, why would he not have the right to cut down his life span to flee from agony? Is not the pain of waiting for death more traumatic?

Family heirs who would misuse euthanasia as a tool for wealth inheritance do not hold true. The reason is, the relatives can withdraw life support leading to the early death of the said individual even in the absence of legalized euthanasia. Here they are not actively causing death but passively waiting for it without the patients consent. This is passive involuntary euthanasia that is observed approximately even without authorized hold.

Health care expenditure is and will always be a concern for the family irrespective of the euthanasia laws and only those who can afford a prolonged unproductive treatment will continue to do so. A selection of those in support of mercy killing often asked whether it is rational to keep a person- who has no hopes of survival, alive on a support method when the medicinal infrastructure by now is under enormous stress.

Here are some cons of euthanasia:

Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law. It is homicide and murdering another human and it cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.
Human life deserves exceptional security and protection. Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life. Soothing concern and healing centers are good alternatives to aid the disabled close to demise, live an ache-free and improved life.
Family members would take undue advantage if euthanasia was legalized by influencing the patients decision into it for personal gains. Also, there is no way one can really be sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others
Even doctors cannot firmly predict the period of death and whether there is the possibility of remission with advanced treatment. So, executing euthanasia would denote many illegal deaths that could have well-survived afterward. Decriminalizing euthanasia would be similar to authorizing law abusers and rising to disbelieve of patients in the direction of physicians.
Mercy killing would lead to the slippery slope effect; which is when those who are unable to voice their desires, are put to death because of no fault of theirs, like a baby or someone in a coma or in case of animal euthanasia. It would cause repudiation in healthiness and cause persecution of the most susceptible sections of humanity. Possibly, mercy killing would convert itself from right to die to right to kill.
Moreover, all religions believe euthanasia to be an act of murder, with no ones right to end life or be the judge of what happens next. Apart from these reasons, there is a greater possibility of euthanasia being messed up with.

Thus, morally and ethically, a medical professional has vowed to give and protect life. Taking away the life of a patient is an act, totally against the very basic principles of the medical profession. Also, the person asking for any of the acts of killing is considered to be in a state of comprised mental ability. This makes them unnecessarily ask for death to be freed from the depression and loss of freedom due to the inability to carry out physical activities.

I believe that it is better to die with dignity than to live with soreness or ache. Euthanasia is one of the diverse ways to die with dignity. In addition, organ donation is a very sacred way for a person to die. If the person is living with pain or ache and there is no possibility to save him, then he must go for medically assisted dying. In present-day society, people choose to donate their organs as a helpful gesture for the others who required them.

Conclusion And Suggestions

The issue of Euthanasia is an extremely contentious and disruptive matter, raising an array of complicated ethical, fair, societal, thoughtful, lawful, and spiritual concerns. There is two major points of view deployed alongside euthanasia. The first group is religious: many religions, notably Christians, do not recognize a right to die, believing life to be a divine gift. Christians also regard suicide as a sin.

The second group relates to the requirement of consent. The capacity of terminally- ill patients to give informed consent for their own killing is questioned. Sometimes the doctors and relatives may press people into accepting euthanasia against their will and for reasons not related to their welfare.

In the United States, Dr. Jack Kevorkian known as Dr. Death successfully challenged the law on euthanasia, avoiding prosecution for conducting medically assisted suicides die.

Click Here To Order Now!