Euthanasia: The Easy, Painless, Happy Death
The argument of Euthanasia is a battle that may never be won. On one side of the spectrum, it is seen as an alternative to living a life full of pain and suffering, whereas the other side sees it as inhumane, unnatural, and immoral. This isn’t a subject that came about thanks to the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian, but has been around for centuries.
“The word “euthanasia” was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a “physician’s responsibility to alleviate the ‘physical sufferings’ of the body.” (Wikipedia) During an era where there were few, if any, treatments for illnesses, the logical and moral treatment for painful, terminal illnesses and conditions was to ease suffering by way of euthanasia. No one wanted to suffer through a disease that was inevitably going to take their life in way of torturous pain and no one wants to now. Though there are so many options available in way of medications to “ease” the pain and suffering, the outcome is still the same; death. Once the disease gets to a certain point in its destruction, patients must “live” being bedridden and sedated. I would have to disagree that living in such a way is how we were intended to live out our final days, which is why I agree that euthanasia should be given as a choice to terminal patients who would rather be at peace than to prolong the pain for themselves or their families.
There is always a good argument to any subject that is controversial. Both sides have excellent points and ways of making you choose which you believe in the most. As with the subject of euthanasia people on both sides raise excellent arguments. I understand that there is always that chance someone can be treated for their illness and given a second chance at life or that the irreversible coma could miraculously become reversible, but that chance is extremely slim. However,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document