SHOULD TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS BE ALLOWED TO

TAKE THEIR LIVES?

The morality behind human euthanasia

 Introduction

◦ The euthanasia debate is really the backdrop for a discussion within our society about the very nature of human life and meaning,but what
exactly is it?
◦ Euthanasia (from Greek- "good death", eu; "well" or "good" + thanatos; "death") is the practice of intentionally ending a life to
relieve pain and suffering. It is legal when it comes to aniimals and animals doctors use this method for very I’ll patients despite it being
illegal. Euthanasia can take different forms:
◦ Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by an act - for example when a person is killed by being given an overdose of pain-killers.

Passive euthanasia is when death is brought about by an omission - i.e. when someone lets the person die. This can be by withdrawing or
withholding treatment:  for example, switching off a machine that is keeping a person alive, so that they die of their disease,or not carrying
out surgery that will extend life for a short time.

Traditionally, passive euthanasia is thought of as less bad than active euthanasia. But some people,including me, think active euthanasia is
morally better.
Arguments
◦ Those in favour of euthanasia argue that a civilised society should allow people to die in dignity and without
pain, and should allow others to help them do so if they cannot manage it on their own.

They say that our bodies are our own, and we should be allowed to do what we want with them. So it's wrong
to make anyone live longer than they want. In fact making people go on living when they don't want to violates
their personal freedom and human rights.It's immoral, they say to force people to continue living in suffering
and pain.

They add that as suicide is not a crime, euthanasia should not be a crime.
◦ Religious opponents of euthanasia believe that life is given by God, and only God should decide when to end it.

Other opponents fear that if euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it would be abused, and people
would be killed who didn't really want to die,this is called the slippery slope effect)
 The slippery slope effect
Critics of euthanasia sometimes claim that legalizing any form of the
practice will lead to a slippery slope effect, resulting eventually in non-
voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia. The slippery slope argument
has been present in the euthanasia debate since at least the 1930s.
It claims that the acceptance of certain practices, such as physician-
assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, will invariably lead to the
acceptance or practice of concepts which are currently deemed
unacceptable, such as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.
In 2007,The Times reported that, according to the British Social
Attitudes survey, 80% of the public said they wanted the law changed
to give terminally ill patients the right to die with a doctor's help.
In the same survey, 45% supported giving patients with non-terminal
illnesses the option of euthanasia.
◦ I personally consider human euthanasia a better way to kick
the bucket than slowly decaying because of an ilness,
despite some people thinking it’s the „weak"alternative and
you should fight the condition. When there’s no light at the
end of the tunnel,I think it isn’t such a bad thing and it
would actually be quite helpful if legalised and used
cautiously. With enough care, the practice could be useful
and it could give death a less scary reputation since people
would not die alone,old and sick,but have the option of
ending their suffering when there’s nothing left to right for.

◦ At the end of the day, who would prefer slowly and

painfully dying of a terminal ilness because some higher
entity demands it, rather than experiencing a painless death
surrounded by the most important people in their lives?