Why Euthanasia Should Be Legal: Analysing The Most Controversial Debate

Voluntary euthanasia is the the deliberate practice of ending a suffering individual’s life, in turn releasing them from pointless pain. More and more countries have begun to adopt the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is too often associated and mistaken with assisted suicide. In “Why euthanasia should be legal?’ essay I will be arguing that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. Euthanasia should be seen as a merciful means to the end of long term suffering from incurable disease. All suffering persons should be provided the option to leave earth side safely and with their dignity intact. Legalizing euthanasia is one of the most controversial debates in the world. In the United States, it has gained a negative connotation due to improper media coverage and therefore an incorrect understanding of what it is. For the rest of this paper, I will be providing reasons the United States should adopt euthanasia and furthermore provide examples of reasons that it could have the potential to be unsuccessful in the United States.

Personal Arguments on Why Euthanasia Should Be Legal

Voluntary euthanasia would allow patients who have exhausted every other option that is reasonable to choose a calm, painless end to their suffering. This is a practice that would be offered to terminally ill patients who have a low quality of life remaining and a limited time living. Patients would have to express their wishes, often in writing, that this is something they are willingly interested in doing. It is not a simple process and often takes a lengthy examination of the patient’s health, mental status (unless a power of attorney is involved) to determine if this would be a proper course of action. In exercising autonomy, individuals should be able to take responsibility for how their choice in how they wish to die. The technological advancements of modern medicine has allowed for many people to extend the length of their time here. Sometimes this extended time allows for extra last goodbyes. But a lot of this time is also spent in pain and longingly waiting until the final day that pain comes to an end. As long as a terminally ill individual is fully competent, using their own judgement of whether or not to continue their low quality of life, should weigh far heavier than anything else. Trying to sustain life in a terminally ill body is morally wrong. These terminal, life threatening illnesses usually come with insufferable pain and misery. Is keeping these patients alive not just a step away from torture? Making an individual who has lost their will to live, stay alive wallowing in deep sorrow until their inevitable death.

Humans have a fundamental right to live. Why would the opposite not be the same? Why should suffering individuals not be given the right to choose the outcome of their lives. Denying this right is ultimately just prolonging the suffering for not only the ill individuals, but their families as well. Keeping a terminally ill individual alive is often an immense financial burden. Hospice care, live-in aids, daily medications, and regular hospital visits are just among the many financial responsibilities that a patient has to take care of. The current laws in the United States make it so an individual dealing with great suffering has no choice but to endure that suffering, failing to aid their wishes of ending all the pain. Another conflict against euthanasia is of religious concern. Most religious individuals believe it is up to God, and God only, to decide when to put an end to life. We should not be able to pick and choose when our time is up because that is something destined by God. When it comes to the law, there should always be a separation of church and state. Religion can not always dictate the outcome of law. Like most other laws that involve ethics and religion, religion is not typically a consideration in action determining whether or not to proceed with the law.

Possible Outcomes of Legalizing Euthanasia

Many people are concerned with the abuse that may follow legalizing euthanasia. Most individuals opposed to euthanasia bring up the topic of murder. Patients could be coerced by doctors, spouses, and/or family. Concerns relating to this would be addressed by implementing safeguards in the law. Safeguards such as a certain criteria has to be met in order for the patient to even be considered to be eligible. Examples of this could include: the patient must suffer from a terminal illness that has a very low percentage of recovery, must be evaluated and deemed mentally competent to make this decision, more than one medical opinion should determine the rate of recovery, and finally, all practices must mandatorily report. Unfortunately, as with most laws in place, there are loopholes that may be found to almost anything. As the role of lawmakers, it is their job to ensure that the safeguards put in place to remove as many of these loopholes as possible. Euthanasia is already unknowingly widely practiced in the United States; removing life support from someone who is brain dead and/or has no quality of life and aborting a fetus who could be born deformed or with a low quality of life.

Conclusion

It is only just and humane for a suffering individual to have the right to choose an end to their insufferable quality of life. Many safeguards would be put in place in order to avoid abuse. Euthanasia is not murder; simply put, it brings a death that is otherwise inevitable closer and puts an end to suffering. We should not have to endure watching loved ones suffer if there was the opportunity for it all to be avoided. Our loved ones suffering from a terminal illness should be given the rightful opportunity to willingly and peacefully pass away with dignity. Allowing someone to end their suffering is morally justified. In a free society, much like the one we live in, all individuals who qualify for euthanasia should be legally allowed to do so. There shall be no repercussions to exercise this autonomous right.     

Works Cited

1. Battin, M. P. (2016). The ethics of euthanasia. Oxford University Press.
2. Chambaere, K., Bilsen, J., Cohen, J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Mortier, F., Deliens, L., & van der Heide, A. (2015). Physician-assisted deaths under the euthanasia law in Belgium: a population-based survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(10), E322-E329.
3. Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama, 316(1), 79-90.
4. Humphry, D. (1991). Final exit: The practicalities of self-deliverance and assisted suicide for the dying. Delta.
5. Keown, J. (2017). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press.
6. Levene, M. I. (2017). Terminal sedation, voluntary palliated starvation and euthanasia: An analysis of the comparative ethical and legal aspects in Israel and the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(6), 373-377.
7. Lewis, P. (2017). Assisted dying and the English courts: recent developments. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(6), 353-356.
8. Pabst Battin, M. (2015). The least worst death: Essays in bioethics on the end of life. Oxford University Press.
9. Rodriquez, R. A. (2016). Argumentative essay on euthanasia. Free samples of argumentative essays. Available at https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/argumentative-essay-on-euthanasia/
10. Sulmasy, D. P. (2016). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Jama, 316(5), 545-546.