Running Head: Legalization of Euthanasia 1
Legalization of Euthanasia 2
There has been a wide array of debate of the last few decades regarding the idea, and practice of Euthanasia, or “Mercy-Killing.” Euthanasia is known as, “the act or practice of deliberately by painlessly killing, or allowing to die, a person suffering the stress attending the approach of death from an incurable illness or suffering intractable pain, with or without that person's consent of expressed desire (Chong & Fok, 2009, p.120).” This practice has been debated by many groups, each with their own differing viewpoints on the grounds of religion, public opinion, and scientific perspectives. This paper will grasp, and understand each groups view points and mode of thinking, and will prove that euthanasia should not be legal on grounds of religious beliefs. Previous studies pose the statement, that despite group views, all groups have people that may differ from the views of the rest of their respective groups. In euthanasia there is two types, and these types decide what decisions are made in the procedure of euthanasia. They are active, and passive. Active euthanasia is situations where there are steps taken to hasten the death of an ill patient (Chong & Fok, 2009). Passive euthanasia is where instead of taking steps to hasten death, the treatments for the ill patient are withheld or withdrawn (Chong & Fok, 2009). Passive euthanasia is something of public debate due to the halting of required medical treatment, in the process of euthanasia. Active euthanasia consists of three types of classifications in which this type is carried out. They are voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a life because of severe or incurable diseases. This type is given by the consent of the patient (Chong & Fok, 2009). I believe that this act of suicide is terrible, because the individual has resorted to such a thing, but at this level of consciousness the individual has the right to end his or her life. Through religious pursuit, and other influences we must try to ward away this type of voluntary thinking, and it may be hard to accept, but it is the Legalization of Euthanasia 3
The act of non-voluntary euthanasia is the opposite of voluntary. In this classification the patient is in a state of coma, or unconsciousness and thus can not consent themselves, but is done by consent of others related to that patient. (Chong & Fok, 2009). This classification of euthanasia is basically not even a part of euthanasia. In most modern situations, and action like this is immediately referred to as murder. The third and final classification is known as involuntary euthanasia. During this type the patient receives medication to kill the patient without consent by the patient, or another explicit request. This type is out right immoral, and is equivalent to the murder of another human being. This type is held in strong opposition by the public, and religious leaders (Chong & Fok, 2009). Personally I believe that to carry out this action is to play God, by choosing when one lives or dies, and is a large sinful action. Through euthanasia there are always going to be difficult decisions to be made. Most decisions made on the basis of euthanasia involve many dilemas that concern morals, emotions, medical ethics, and religious beliefs (Chong & Fok, 2009). People that oppose euthanasia believe that the process demeans the doctor from being the healer, and thus this becomes a health care cost. Opposition against euthanasia is also a debate on religious beliefs. Most believe that it is not our responsibility or right, to take a person's life, and that that capability rests only in God's hand. However some people miss the real reason for the support of euthanasia, and that is the simple fact that the people who are suffering would like to die a dignified...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document