In the United States, physician-assisted suicide or aid in dying has always been carefully distinguished

from euthanasia. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, refers to the administration of a lethal medication
to an incurably suffering patient. It may be voluntary (the patient requests it) or involuntary. Euthanasia
is illegal in the United States, but voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, and
Canada.

Assisted suicide is where a doctor helps a patient to kill themselves by prescribing a lethal drug for the
patient to take. This becomes euthanasia when the doctor administers the drug directly.

There are essentially two forms that euthanasia can take: ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’.

 Active euthanasia is where somebody is effectively killed—they may, for instance, be given an
overdose of morphine.
 Passive euthanasia is where a person dies because the medicine or treatment that is keeping
them alive is withdrawn or stopped.

Differences of Opinion

Most of the arguments for and against the right to die are ideological, based on many important aspects
of civility: the law, religion or spiritual beliefs, ethics, and social mores. Opinions vary based on personal
experiences, belief systems, age, culture, and other aspects of humankind that influence how we think
about important aspects of life.

Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because medical professionals stop doing something that
keeps the patient alive.

Prolonging natural life: Humans should not prolong life when it is clear that one’s life is about to end.
The use of life-support and other machines and medication only serve to cause further pain to a dying
person, since their life is usually almost over. In such cases, the person should be allowed to die at least
a natural death without intervention from anyone. This is consistent with support for passive euthanasia
where medication is withdrawn from patients who are about to die.

And we this we get to next point which is one I really wanted to talked about were the DNR patients

DNR patients can have another choice. DNR is a Do Not Resuscitate order. Which means a person has
decided not to have CPR attempted on them if their heart or breathing stops. Also, Do Not Resuscitate
order is legal in all hospitals. So why is it legal to have DNR but not euthanasia.

Most of the people who choose to have a DNR usually have a terminal illness, incurable disease or other
serious medical condition and have decided to withdraw any medical treatment, which can be consider
passive euthanasia. These patients have no other way of ending their suffering but to wait for their
death.

So having euthanasia can give these patients another way to leave the world on their terms.

The only difference between ordering a DNR and euthanasia is that, with a DNR, the medical
professional is required to stop doing whatever it is that is keeping the patient alive, and with
euthanasia, you have a medical professional taking part in the passing of a patient. Otherwise, if thought
about, both send us to the same ending.
Another good thing about euthanasia is that it can encourage the transplantation of organs.

Encouraging the organ transplantation: Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to
advocate for organ donation. At later stages of many terminal illnesses, organs are severely weakened
and, in some cases, failing. Which means that it may not be possible to use them at that point. Using
euthanasia at time will give Doctors a chance to examine the vital organs to see if they can be donated.
This in turn will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only euthanasia
gives ‘Right to die’ for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life’ for the organ needy patients.

There should be more options and less pushing to give the patient false hope.

One of the thing my teammates have mentioned is the relief of suffering of the patients, but what about
the suffering of the patient´s loved ones.

Euthanasia Can help to shorten the grief and suffering of the patient’s loved ones. In addition to
ending suffering to the recipient, euthanasia also ends suffering by friends and relatives who watch their
relatives die slowly and painfully. When relatives watch their loved ones die painful and slow deaths,
they suffer from trauma which may adversely affect them, and it may lead to development of mental
disorders. Euthanasia is therefore seen as a way of ending suffering to friends and relatives of those who
are about to die.

And finally I would like to say that

IT CAN BE REGULATED: Making euthanasia legal allows it to be regulated by governments. The truth is
that euthanasia will always continue to take place, even if it’s illegal. At least if it’s legal then the process
can be controlled, including proper safeguards and checks to ensure this is really what the person wants.

Killing vs. letting die: There is dispute over whether killing a patient is really any worse than letting the
patient die if both result in the same outcome.

Commonsense morality usually thinks that letting a person die is not as bad as killing a person. We
sometimes condemn letting an innocent person die and sometimes not, but we always condemn killing
an innocent person.

Consider different instances of “letting die.” One might claim that it is wrong to let our neighbor die of
an accident if we could easily have saved his or her life by calling an ambulance. On the other hand, we
let starving people in poor countries die without condemning ourselves for failing to save them, because
we think they have no right to demand we prevent their deaths. But if someone killed a neighbor or
starving people we would think that wrong.

Likewise, we would condemn a healthcare professional who kills a patient. But we might accept the
healthcare professional who at patient and family request withholds artificial life support to allow a
suffering, terminally ill patient to die.

The distinction between killing and letting die is controversial in healthcare because critics charge there
is no proper moral basis for the distinction. They say that killing the above patient brings about the
same end as letting the patient die. Others object to this and claim that the nature of the act of killing is
different than letting die in ways that make it morally wrong.
Ordinary vs. extraordinary treatment: Ordinary medical treatment includes stopping bleeding,
administering pain killers and antibiotics, and setting fractures. But using a mechanical ventilator to
keep a patient breathing is sometimes considered extraordinary treatment or care. Some ethicists
believe letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or care is acceptable but
withholding or withdrawing ordinary treatment or care is not. This view is controversial. Some claim
the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment is artificial, contrived, vague, or
constantly changing as technology progresses

Death intended vs. anticipated: Some ethicists believe that if a suffering, terminally-ill patient dies
because of intentionally receiving pain-relieving medications, it makes a difference whether the death
itself was intended or merely anticipated. If the death was intended, it is wrong but if the death was
anticipated it might be morally acceptable. This reasoning relies on the moral principle called the
principle of double effect.

According to the patient autonomy principle, competent patients should be given the opportunity to
choose their treatments, or refuse unwanted ones. The implications of refusing or requesting
treatments differ, in both legal and moral terms. Complying with this principle may exemplify
challenging issues and some confusion relating to the decision-making processes associated with "End-
of-Life" issues.

Over the past few decades, health professionals and ethicists have become aware of the confusion
caused by the failure to distinguish between the obligation of heal-care professional to respond to the
patients' requests for treatment or their refusal to be treated, especially those relating to the "End-of-
Life," including Euthanasia DNR {Do Not Resuscitate), and AND (Allowing Natural Death). This confusion
is due to the misinterpretation of the terms. With regard to patients' preference to end their lives
without suffering, and the use of the terms, such as end-of-life decisions or choices, which may be
refusals of, or requests for treatment. This can be understood as the patient's right to choose or reject
one or more end-of-life options presented by the physician. However, the issue of physician compliance
with the patients' requests to end their lives is not even considered.

“The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and
dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The
exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this
Court’s decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and
the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.”

To summarize, Euthanasia should only be approved in hopeless cases after several experienced doctors
have examined the case and found that the person has a disease that will lead to death within weeks or
months. The patient should also receive all psychological support to understand what they are asking for
and also know that they can stop the whole process at any time if they regret it.

In the end, death is a tangible option for those who are suffering and do not see life as an option any
longer. Many see it as inhumane and religiously wrong, but we must also see it from the eyes of the
patient.

Questions
If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment, why would he not have the right to shorten his
lifetime to escape the intolerable anguish? Isn’t the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic?