Euthanasia has been a controversial topic of discussion in the last decades, since, dealing it, we have to take into account the so-called right to life, which appears in many different declarations of human rights (Right to life, 2010) and which seems, or could seem, inherent to our species. By euthanasia we can understand “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma” (Oxford dictionaries, 2010). Of course, it may be more complicated than this. A classification of euthanasia (Euthanasia, 2010) could be made by regarding to whether the person involved gives explicit consent, into these different groups: voluntary euthanasia, which is legal in some countries of the EU and in some USA states, non-voluntary euthanasia, related to those people who legally cannot decide to give consent or not (children mainly), and involuntary euthanasia, which is highly regarded as a crime in political terms. Besides, the division may go further if we think of passive or active procedurals. However, the one that leads to special considerations is that of voluntary and active euthanasia. Thus, in this essay I will discuss and analyze some argument supporting a legal status for this “good death”, others viewpoints against it and the space in between.
First of all, it might be easy to find a wide range of arguments that defend this practice for the benefit of the suffering patients. Following the most basis statements of the International Declaration of Human Rights (Eutanasia, 2010), the euthanasia could be seen as an ethical action. How could this be inferred? Human rights are based on the defense of free decisions of citizens; therefore, the people who are suffering from terminal illnesses would have the liberty to choose everything related to their own body and to the way they’d like to live - or not. Furthermore, there is another point that can be argued in favor of it. Why do people have to bear pain of diseases...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document