Ana Lilia López Matus

114252
Jun 3rd, 2019
Final essay

Euthanasia should be considered as a human right.

Euthanasia has been the cause of controversies throughout the history of humanity,

manifesting positions divided between scientific, historical, religious and philosophical

sustenance. Euthanasia is an intervention that accelerates the death of a terminal patient by

nullifying the suffering and pain of the individual. The doctors are responsible for executing it,

usually with the support of the relatives of the patient in question. However, there are cases

where the patient is in a position to choose over his own body and voluntarily requests the

application of euthanasia. This practice, however, is prohibited in most countries, except the

Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Colombia, and Luxembourg, so, every day more voices arise

outside those countries that ask for the legalization of euthanasia. The quality of life and the

autonomy of the patient are key reasons to maintain a favorable position before Euthanasia. For

this reason, euthanasia should be considered a human right for those who wish it.

Proponents of euthanasia allude to the fact that each person has the right to make decisions

with aspects related to their lives, including their death. As long as the person is lucid and his

intention to die is clear, there should be no questions. But those who are against euthanasia

believe that no one has the right to decide when someone else's life or their own life ends,

claiming that God is the one who gives life and God is the one who takes it away. (Dent, 1996)

Wrote a letter to the Anglican Episcopal Church: "If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia,

then don't use it, but please do not deny the right to me.” That was after be diagnosed with

terminal cancer expressing disillusionment with politics within the church. Human beings are
independent biological entities and, as adults, have the right to make and carry out decisions

about themselves. (Hawking, 2013) Said: “I think those who have a terminal illness and are in

great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives.” Therefore, giving the right to die

to a person who is suffering is better, than keep it alive when you know that death can no longer

be avoided.

Euthanasia ends the pain and suffering of the terminally ill patient. If a terminal patient faces

a long, slow and painful death, surely it is much nicer to save this kind of suffering and allow

him to end his life as he wishes. On the other hand, current medicine has a number of drugs to

control pain, so you can try to manage the pain without taking the life of a person. ( The World

Health Organization, 1990) Considers that "with the development of modern methods of

palliative treatment, the legalization of euthanasia is not necessary". Although there are certainly

methods and analgesics used to relieve and manage pain symptoms, these usually have

unpleasant side effects or can leave the patient in a state of sedation. With this, it's not like

they're really living, they're just waiting to die. Euthanasia avoids the suffering of the person

who requests it and rejects the artificial prolongation of life that leads to situations that are

unworthy. For this reason, people who request euthanasia should be able to avoid this kind of

torturous existence and should be allowed to die worthily in the way they desire.

The terminally ill, who request euthanasia, want to die with dignity. The lack of usefulness in

not being able to do practically nothing becomes suffering for terminally ill people and they feel

like a burden for themselves and their families so euthanasia is for those who request it the way

to die with dignity. On the other hand, there may be no acceptance of this decision by relatives

and close social circles who may see euthanasia as suicide or homicide. Despite all this, the

decision that should be more important is that of the terminal patient given that no one should be
forced to live when it is an impossible burden to bear. (Hawking, 2015) Said: "To keep someone

alive against their wishes is the ultimate indignity.” Death is something natural, something we

cannot avoid, for a patient with Terminal Illness means that, unless a miracle occurs, it will die

over time, regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong its life expectancy.

Euthanasia only advances death to those who do not want to live what remains of their lives tied

to a bed.

Nowadays, thanks to advances in medicine, it is possible to significantly lengthen the life of

patients, but their will is not always taken into account. The humanitarian motives in the face of

the unnecessary suffering of a terminally ill person only prolong their agony and not their life. If

they are denied the right to die by euthanasia, they are practically claimed that they are not the

owners of their lives. Each person must have the right to direct their life to the end and to decide

at any time what is best for them. We cannot admit the existence of the right to the free

development of the personality and then annul it at a specific moment in the life of the human

being as in this case, at the end of it, because even if it is the end of life, it is still life, therefore,

the human being also has the right to direct it at that moment. Dying through euthanasia is not a

decision that all people in the terminal state decide, they are a minority, but despite this, they

should be able to have the right to want to leave the world in the most dignified way they want.
Bibliography

The World Health Organization. (1990). Forty-third World Health Assembly, Geneva, 7-17 May
1990: resolutions and decisions, annexes. The World Health Organization. Retrieved
from The World Health Organization: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/201722
Dent, B. (21 de September de 1996). Euthanasia: Global and Indian Perspective. Retrieved
from: https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/54434/7/07_chapter-2.pdf
Hawking, S. (18 de September de 2013). abcNEWS. Retrieved from abcNEWS:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/stephen-hawking-flip-assisted-suicide-divides-die-
movement/story?id=20291577
Hawking, S. (03 de Jun de 2015). The Guardian. Retrieved from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/03/stephen-hawking-i-would-consider-
assisted-suicide

Reference

Bellaigue, C. d. (18 de January de 2019). The Guardian. Retrieved from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/18/death-on-demand-has-euthanasia-gone-
too-far-netherlands-assisted-dying
debatewish.org. (22 de February de 2017). Retrieved from debatewish.org:
https://debatewise.org/debates/861-do-you-agree-or-disagree-with-euthanasia-or-mercy-
killing/
Faculty of Law, U. o. (24 de October de 2014). NCBI. Retrieved from NCBI:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441884/
Jackson, E. (02 de December de 2017). abcNEWS. Retrieved from abcNEWS:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-02/euthanasia-is-not-just-about-unbearable-
pain/9214008
Niekerk, A. v. (25 de October de 2016). The conversation. Retrieved from e The conversation:
http://theconversation.com/we-have-a-right-to-die-with-dignity-the-medical-profession-
has-a-duty-to-assist-67574
Organization, T. W. (7-17 de May de 1990). The World Health Organization. Retrieved from
The World Health Organization: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/201722
Practice, F. (02 de April de 2002). OXFORD Academy. Retrieved from OXFORD Academy:
https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/19/2/128/490935
Sciences, D. o. (2012, December 12). NCB. Retrieved from NCB:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/