Euthanasia: a Right to Die or a Right to Kill?

What is Euthanasia? Euthanasia is the deliberate advancement of a person's death for the benefit
of that person. In most cases euthanasia is carried out because the person asks to die, but there
are cases where a person can't make such a request.
A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally ill. Euthanasia can be carried out either
by doing something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something
necessary to keep the person alive (for example failing to keep their feeding tube going).
Euthanasia depreciates human life. Euthanasia may transfer from voluntary to involuntary. Euthanasia may
be used not only for people who are “mortally sick”. Does it sound weighty enough? I think more than
enough.

In conclusion, religions are different. But there is the only and extremely important issue that unites
Christianity and Islam: suicide is forbidden. God gives us life and God takes it back. And it’s not up to human
beings to make such a decision.

In my opinion it's not moral to kill a person even if they are terminally ill because this person
need a chance to live along and see his life, Suffering is part of the human condition and part of
life's experience. Also medication can be improved to help a person's quality of life and make
their deaths as humane as possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are
still biologically existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until
its natural conclusion. As a catholic, I believe that human life is sacred gift from God that need to
be cherished and respected because every human being is created in the image and likeness of
God. We must respect and protect the dignity of a human from the moment of conception to the
moment of natural death.

I think that it is our fate and nothing happens in theis world just like that for no reason.
Everything in this world happen for a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she
may not realise it.
You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good
thing for him or her ?? But you never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree
that murder is something really bad and is not allowed so how come killing a person is the right
thing?? Even if that person is suffering.What would you call it? Wouldn't you call it killing.
I will say that life is something complicated. It is not something that we could ever realize and
understand 100 percent but each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone
would die I definitely don't have the choice to choose whether to kill that person or not even if he
or she is suffering. Maybe yes a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering and have a
relaxed life but sometimes and mostly always things don't always turn out to be exactly like what
we want. So I think it depends on how a person believes in God if he or she have faith in God
then they will know that this is the will of God and will take it. We can't say that there is a life
with no suffering each and every person in his life have suffered in their life but it is how you
deal with them that matters and not to run away because you're afraid to face them or afraid that
you would suffer because they always say that you will always face your biggest fears in your
life. So i would never kill a person and take the blame for it my entire life as I might someday sit
alone and ask myself a question, did I kill my mother?? Even if their relatives may be suffering
from watching their loved one's condition deteriorate, they have no right to either decide or put
pressure on a person to end their own life because of their own sufffering. Just as it may be the
individuals right to die it is also the right of the individuals right to "rage against the dying of the
light" with their support of their family so to speak.
While it may be an 'agony to watch a loved one deteriorate' many will also want to spend as long
as possible with their loved ones, and more than likely a family will be split on the matter
meaning that the views of the family would have to have no impact on the matter.

Laws are codifications of what morals exist in a society. Side Opposition wonders how exactly
'Medical Ethics' would be defined in the status quo anywhere in the world if these things were
not defined through the law. Furthermore, most nations have ways in which the law can in fact
be changed, thus giving law the ability to adapt to the specificity and multitude of problems that
do exist in regards to health care.

Also, without the law then attempts to even test a society with PAS wouldn't exists anyway.
Simply put, the law is what safeguards patients, doctors, and everyone else in the medical field,
anywhere.

And still, any change in health care can directly affect not just what humans can do, but how
humans think about being human (and, therefore, what rights and obligations humans should
have). As issues of between medical ethics and the law come into play the importance of prudent
use of law to protect health and safety becomes central. Finally, issues of social justice and
resource allocation are presented more starkly in the medical care context than in any other
context.
But there are instances that may interchange my perspective about Mercy Killing, I believe that
everyone has the right to choose how he or she live and die. Not everybody will have an easy
death. Some terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best of care and the strongest of
drugs. Other distressing symptoms, which come with diseases, such as sickness, no mobility,
breathlessness and fever cannot always be relieved. A life filled with pain is horrible and it ruins
the quality of life. I believe that that no life is better than a life without communication and
happiness. I think that the point of life is to find happiness and suffering is surely not achieving
this. For something to be immoral, it would have to violate moral laws or norms. The argument
of anti-euthanasia proponents is that euthanasia is immoral because life must be preserved and
protected. The preservation of life is, however, subject to the self-determined choice of the
person and not the choice of the physician. As an example, murder infringes on a person’s right
to life by taking away the element of choice in the persons death. No infringement is done when
it is the person who chooses how to die. For a physician to deny the person his right to die when
under intense pain and suffering is effectively forcing them to live a life without what they
believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual death (in the case of terminally ill
patients). While the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person
to live a life of suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose. Euthanasia
facilitates the choice making it in fact the compassionate choice and sympathetic to that person’s
dignity. It is also important to note that those that argue to preserve life despite the patient being
terminally ill and in extreme pain are usually not the patients themselves and therefore removed
from the consequences of the decision.

Nobody thinks of their death and desires it to be extremely painful or horrible. Rational human
beings desire a good, dignified end to an ideally long and fruitful life. Circumstance, like luck,
may not always be in your favor. It may not even be a terminal disease, which is so frequently
used in pro-euthanasia arguments. It can be as savage as a freak accident or as simple as falling
down the stairs to put you in a world of excruciating pain. While this is never to be wished on
anyone, for those that have had the misfortune of being diagnosed with a terminal or painfully
debilitating disease must have a choice out of it. Do we, who so desire a good death, have the
right to judge others’ state when we know nothing of it? Do we have the right to compare their
experiences day by day, having experienced none of them, and say that they don’t deserve to die
with dignity, the way they want to die? The answer is of course, no, we have no right to deny
them the dignified death that we ourselves naturally desire.

To do so would be selfish and we would effectively be imposing our own desires on that person,
thereby restricting their freedom to self-determine even if it is in the most basic sense.Terminally
ill means terminally ill. This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will die
eventually regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy.
This time and money could be used to help others or cure others who aren't mortally wounded or
diseased.

The rebuttal presupposes that an individual needs to wait for a hypothetical existence of a
treatment being developed on an assumption that decisions that are finalized is not a justification
for terminating a patient's life at one's explicit consent. If decisions made in your life were to be
stagnated each and every time in order for an opportunity to arise everytime, the basis for this
principle would not be a good one at the very least.

Wait one day, wait one week, wait one month, we'll stay back and see. An indecisiveness for
something which might not exist within one's lifetime would make a claim for which things
ought to be reversible or decisions ought to be remade in order for things to be "controlled" in a
manner. In this respect, of the practice of "Euthanasia", death is the ultimate goal of avoidance
and thus a finalized decision of upholding pain until the very last minute of life in respect to
waiting for a treatment outweighs the ultimate outcome of death. The opposition makes a claim
that reversibility of a decision that may be regretted later due to it being finalized is better on
these grounds, however, if life was controllable in all aspects and under all possible
circumstances, we were able to scroll back on our decisions, what meaningful would arise out of
the circumstances for which our decisions are made on? What would the product of our actions,
time and energy be? Aren't these decisions philosophically what identify us as who we are even
to the extent of a life or death situation? Also, even if a cure was possible, what complications
will arise thereafter? What if the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has already lived
a long healthy life? It cannot be justified to deem that waiting for something which might or
might not exist in a future to occur outweighs the prospect of pain. Wait for a miracle "cure",
wait for a revolutionary science "discovery" to solve our problems, wait for a technological
"innovation"...this line of thought may be wise in some situations but not necessarily in the case
of Euthanasia.

A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste
away, appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes
confused, no longer recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to
lose mobility in the limbs, having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Those
suffering with Huntington’s Disease develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational
thought and poor concentration. Involuntary movements, difficulties with speaking and
swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also occur. Families of individuals
suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a shadow of their former
self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a mother, father,
brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last wish.

During those days that my mother-in-law was terminally ill and no chance of survival, my
husband together with his sister had a hard time letting go of their mom. If your loved one was
on stake, deciding to do mercy killing or simply giving up would be the most painful thing. But
the fact that there’s no more pain and suffering lingers with the decision.

I just hope and pray to God everyday that I may not experience to be torn with deciding to do or
not to do the Mercy Killing.
 A Reaction Paper on Euthanasia

(Mercy Killing)

Presented to: Mrs. Judith A. Dizon, RN., MAN

Instructor

Presented by: Bea Flor Rapisura-Pegad

BSN-II