Death is a punishment for some, for others a gift, and for many a favor. " -Séneca.

euthanasia is a very controversial case to discuss and there are different arguments for
or against. In this essay we are going to talk about the pros and cons. I will finish with
my personal opinion and the reasons for my position.

We know it is very controversial when we affirm the dead is better than the medicine.
But to begin is necessary define what is the life of person. According to Paula Siverino,
it is not equal to biological life, the definition of life of person is the axis of human
rights, due to the fact, it implies human dignity. I mean, the life of person has to be of
quality and every basic aspect of it must be satisfied since the life stars until it ends.
Besides, every necessity matter whether it is a basic need or one of those that can wait.

Well, if we talk a quality life, we refer the person has to live quietly and happily. Then,
if we have a disease which has treatment is very painful , would we live quietly and
happily?

There are two position:

First, there are doctors in bioethics who think it´s not a solution.

Those who take this stance, think the Euthanasia will dehumanize medicine. It also
would begin to be considered unworthy to that human life that is hindered by a disease
so that it supposedly cannot be fully developed.

When a person requests the Euthanasia, argues that due to their autonomy and capacity,
they can decide no longer to receive the treatment or the administration of the medicine
that allows them to have a death in dignified conditions. However, It´s important
remember the person have to decide by themselves and request it. Nevertheless, people
have different levels of autonomy, which means that each person has a different rational
capacity to make decisions and act with self-determination. However, when our level of
autonomy is not enough to think rationally, it is necessary to be represented by someone
else who does not make the decision for the patient, but someone who makes decisions
for him. And in this case, the patient cannot make decisions on his own due to the
disease he suffers, therefore it is necessary for the doctor to decide for the patient

Moreover, as bad as the previous point, it is that the decriminalization of euthanasia

results in its indiscriminate use. By the fact, it could be for extreme cases, but over the
years the person would request frequently and unnecessarily; even when the disease is
curable but the treatment is very unpleasant.

For approve the euthanasia

Contrary to the first argument, although it is complicated to understand, medicine

continues to achieve its goals because with euthanasia pain stops and gives relief to the
patient who can only continue living with a long and painful treatment. So, when they
don´t continue the treatment, they find peace in the last days of their life.

Having the right to life should not be understood as having the right to simple existence,
but as the right to exist with a minimally dignified quality of life. In addition to this,
everyone knows dead is part of life and the people has the right to prevent the events of
their life are not painly therefore they try to those events are good and pleasant as much
as possible. Consequently, someone has the right to make the process of dying so
peaceful and it wouldn´t have to be painful, which would prevent their lives from being
worthy

Now, Regarding the second argument presented by the opposing party, this party
considers that the people have the liberty to choose about their life. The aforementioned
freedom implies autonomy and independence to can do something without someone
inhibit it or the state prevent it. If the State tries to limit the right to choose how you
want to die, it would be violating your autonomy and freedom.

Finally, the third point, they think the regulation could be dangerous but this party think
that the regulation would help make euthanasia a faster process; However, this does not
imply that euthanasia is easily granted to anyone, but quite the contrary, since there are
requirements to request it, firstly, the disease or its treatment must be painful and
difficult to face; secondly, the person who has requested it is in completely use of his
faculties to request. In addition to certifying the disease through a medical report.

Having clarified the arguments of both positions, I want to explain my opinion.

Personally, I think that euthanasia should be legalized and regulated completely. In

Perú, we have the first case of approved request of euthanasia. It´s Ana Estrada´s case,
she has a disease that prevents you from being able to move completely. She has been
fighting to the State approve since a several years. The journalist interviewed her and
asked her why she would want to dye, if the treatment could extend her life, to which
she replied that she could not continue living that way because there was no full
enjoyment of her life and that. In the best of days, she could move only one finger and
the pain caused by this disease is a little less but it still present. Also, they asked her
why not only she committed suicide and she said that it would be very difficult for her
family: firstly, because she could not do it alone and secondly, that it could cause
trauma to her family. What would be very different, if she were euthanized. After she
passed away, her family would be treated psychologically. Finally, she explains that
throughout her life she has had to give up everything she loved from her little kitten to
her boyfriend because of the difficulty of her illness, therefore she had to fight to be
able to choose how to die, that is painlessly and peacefully.

The third article of Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to life,
liberty and security of person. The first right has double interpretation. The first mean,
the life implies hat nobody could be killed arbitrarily. The second mean, but not less
important, it´s the person can be fully developed and realized; also, during development
all needs must be met. In this sense, we understand that throughout the development of
life there must be peace and fullness, so that the person can do what he wants.

The second right, the liberty implies the person has autonomy to can do what he or she
want. The State shouldn´t to intervene to prevent what the person wants to do mine
while that action doesn´t contradict public order; on the contrary, it must act when the
person is prevented from doing what they want or forced to do something they do not
want.

Consequently, those who are at a point where their physical and mental state do not find
peace or relief from the illness they suffer because treatment to postpone life is
extremely painful, there is not quality life. Therefore, the person can request the
suspension of the practice of the treatment, or the administration of the medication to
end the pain. To prevail their right to freedom and to die how they wish and in dignified
conditions, without pain or suffering. We are talking about a passive euthanasia where
the treatment is suspended knowing even so that, without the treatment, the person
would die. A medicine could also be applied so that he can pass away peacefully,
which is known as active euthanasia.
This act could not be considered murder because it is not an arbitrary decision of the
Doctor because the patient has requested the practice of euthanasia by his will and with
full capacity to decide for himself, for his health and his life.

The family would receive psychological assistance to face that the disease had no cure
and the process was very painful for the patient, who finally made that decision. The
State would be in charge of all this process.