Euthanasia in our Society
Since the era of the Christ, Euthanasia’s issues on society and acceptance are yet to change. Debate over whether a patient who is suffering should have the choice of ending their lives by an assisted physician has reached its way to even the Supreme Court. Whether or not ending your life should be allowed, it is a radical ultimatum. This ultimatum defines whether you either live to suffer or die while they have a sense of dignity left. Human beings have the right to the Pursuit of happiness; yet suffering in a world where nothing is left for you seems nothing joyful at all. Although this is true, laws against euthanasia are in place to prevent and protect people from unscrupulous doctors, not to mention the emotional and mental self-destruction it causes to loved ones.
Having the right to die is just as important as having the right to life, yet there are many aspects that come into play. The first person to choose a statutory sanctioned death with physician assistance was Bob Dent of Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia, who died September 22, 1996. This was possible under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act which had become effective July 1, 1996 in Northern Australia (Walters, “Death-Whose...”). The Terminally Ill Act was the stepping stone towards ending the suffering of those who don’t desire to live anymore. Controversy over the right to die starts with the question if physician assisted suicide should be legal for the terminally ill. In our society today, there are many diseases like Aids, HIV, Tuberculoses, Measles, and Malaria that make people suffer; More than 5 billion die from these diseases (Top Deadly Diseases). Diseases like these, also including all 200 types of cancer, are deadly and can cause major pain and suffering for patients. Sevier pain like spasm, constant seizures, respiratory problems, and Coma like symptoms and discomfort apply to some but not all these diseases but still cause an overwhelming amount of suffering. Eddie Ramirez of Rangeview high school gave his opinion on the debate of physician assisted suicide; he said “Personally, I don’t think its okay to take your own life unless you are terminally ill. People who suffer from depression and that might have conditions like being Bi-Polar should not have this option. It’s just not fair to those who really do suffer. If you can put down animals for being ill, humans should be the same (Ramirez).” Mr. Ramirez statement that Euthanasia should only be for terminally ill people and that it’s a complete paradox not to put down humans similar to animals is very bold. When animals become ill, we decide to not let them suffer, so we put them down with dignity. It hurts emotionally, yet knowing that their suffering is over lifts off a heavy load from your heart. It would be a double standard not allowing a fatally ill patient to decide his own death when we end our pets’ lives because of their suffering. Doctor’s function has changed over time due to Euthanasia. Doctor’s constant combat with diseases consists of a patients struggle against death. Their job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient’s quality of life. Many times there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent a patient from dying if the patient has a terminal disease; all he/she can do is wait for death to arrive. This waiting time can be very painful for both the patients and the people who surround them. Not practicing Euthanasia violates a person’s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor’s job, and increasing suffering. Deciding if you want to be alive or not is a personal decision, neither doctors nor the government has the power to decide if you should live or not. Since it is not their life and they are not in your situation, they cannot make that kind of decision for you. The government gave us the liberty to decide our job, our family, our religion, and even our sex preference, why should they not give us...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document