Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Student’s Name
Professor’s Number
Course
Date
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a medical process that involves terminating the life of a patient suffering
from a chronic disease that when, however left would succumb to the illness eventually (Keown
21). There are two forms of euthanasia: active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is
when a patient is allowed to die naturally by withdrawing or withholding medication, water, and
diet. According to law and the court justice system, passive euthanasia usually is legal (Paterson
32). Such decisions are based on the facts of specific cases. Despite the differences in the
definition, both active and passive euthanasia has the same process with the same results.
On the other hand, active euthanasia is also known as physician-assisted death (Steinbock
54). It is when the life of an ill person is intentionally ended through unnatural means. Usually,
the process involves fatal inoculation of prescribed medicine. However, there are additional
methods such as depriving the patient of oxygen. The topic about euthanasia has significantly
created a controversial issue whenever an individual view it on legal, religious, and healthcare
basis. Such is because the act is an easy method of culminating a patient’s life, and some of the
family members. There are numerous predicaments that emanates from the topic of euthanasia as
most legal facilities regard the process as suicide (Paterson 45). Patients who opt for the process
are concluded to have committed suicide, whereas those who performed it are concluded to have
Last Name 2
committed murder. Also, the debate has taken center stage in the society as different people have
distinct views regarding the process. For instance, some people wonder if it is legal to terminate
the life of an ill person or a family member that is in anguish. Also, they wonder if the process is
different from killing someone. As such, the argument is on whether it is right for someone to
decide by themselves to terminate the life of a patient without an individual’s consent (Steinbock
581).
There are some core ethical and legal factors that surround the process of euthanasia. As
such, the permissible subject surrounding euthanasia is advance commands and leaving wills
with other individuals. Occasionally with these incentives, the language applied contributes to
misunderstanding, thus compelling doctors to make their clarification (Keown 77). Also, a legal
issue is in the case study of euthanasia as the argument is on why a parent would choose to end
the life of a child when the child would have fought the illness much longer. Parents and
guardians have the freedom to make decisions concerning their children health care. However,
such should not mean that clinicians and parents should ignore the children from deliberations
and making resolutions concerning their healthcare and livelihood. In the state of Indiana, a law
was passed that allowed persons with terminal illnesses to meet specific qualifications before
making a request to a medical professional for medication that the person may self-inscribe to
end a patient’s life (De Lima 11). The law also postulates the specific qualifications a clinician
protection plan based on a suicide section in the life indemnification plan (Keown 71). As a
result, compensations must be paid to the insured’s family by the insurer provided the demise of
the indemnified was as a result of medicinal assistance in dying. However, the law institutes a
Last Name 3
request for a prescription to end the life of a patient. Secondly, the law also establishes Level 1
felony an individual without the authorization of the patient, knowingly forges, conceals,
destroys, or alters a request for a prescription to cause a patient’s death (Paterson 21).
The moral matters that surround euthanasia are the people who decides on whether an
individual ought to undergo the process or not, whether it is principled or unprincipled. Also, the
ethical issues question the circumstances in which the process is justifiable and whether the
employ the skills of extremely trained professionals, infirmary beds, equipment, and
prescriptions towards the patients who wish to live than the ones who do not. Despite all these
factors, only the ill individual understands how they feel, how the responsive and physical pain
There are several controversial cases surrounding the process of euthanasia. For instance,
a nine-year-old who was established with cystic fibrosis and their blood relatives concurred for
them to have active euthanasia (Steinbock 582). The parents consented for the process as they
did not want to further the treatment because a medical professional assumed that it would be
healthier for the child. Form the case study, begs both ethical and legal questions as to why a
clinician would be advocating for the death of a child when they may perhaps have battled off
the illness much longer. As a result of the recommendation from the clinician the child’s parents
were also affected. The parents suffered traumatic grief as they watched their child pass. In most
occasions, the patient’s family members always tend to blame themselves for not being able to
Last Name 4
reverse the process once they realize that their relationship would have lived a little bit longer if
However, irrespective of all the controversies around the process, some countries have
advocated for the legalization of euthanasia. However, the legalization of the medical process
has faced a myriad of distinctive impacts which are positive and negative. The legalization of
euthanasia has been a topic of debate since the start of modern medicine. Legalization of
euthanasia will allow the suffering patients to get their final wish finally (Griffiths, Weyers, and
Adams 23). I believe in the legalization of euthanasia to help those who are suffering and help
them pass on. As such, I support this process because I believe every individual has the freedom
to do whatever they want with their body. The legalization of euthanasia, however, comes with
its positive and negative impacts. The legalization of the process would lead to numerous deaths
of individuals facing depression and those who are unwillingly euthanized. According to
research carried out, about 1 out of 10 of the cancer deaths is caused by euthanasia — such
shows how practitioners will quickly give up and take advantage of a patient’s depression (Levy
23). If doctors can get away with the unethical practices, they may come up with the idea of
euthanizing individuals as a way of escaping the burden of solving the patients’ problems.
Families may also be willing to give up as the cost of hospitals bills become a factor. Taking care
of a sick relation can prove to become a financial burden to the families thus they can opt for
euthanasia.
Additionally, the less educated and the poor minorities are the most vulnerable ones if the
process is legalized. The loss of a loved one through euthanasia will not show that the doctors are
the ones at blame. Therefore, doctors can go ahead and perform the euthanasia process without
the consent of the patients’ family. Such is attributed to the inability to pay for hospital funds and
Last Name 5
also the ignorance of the medical practitioners who become lazy in handling a large number of
patients (Jacobs 73). As a result, the practitioners usually end up administering the medication on
the patients but later pin it on natural death. The process also denies some members of the family
the opportunity to have their last words with the patient as some of the family members are not
usually present throughout the process. Also, religious concerns have been a significant setback
in the legalization of euthanasia. Many religious individuals especially the Christians have
confidence in life as a reward and taking it away is an authority that only has its place with God
(Levy 22). The United States Catholic Bishops have actively opposed euthanasia thus making it
an uphill task for the country to legally adopt the process. Such is attributed to the significant
On the other hand, the legalization of euthanasia also has its advantages in the long run.
The process puts an end to an individual’s suffering. In 1996 United States Court case
concerning the process of euthanasia, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the right of
an emotionally stable patient encountering an incurable disease to select a suitable and honorable
passing, rather than feel an agonizing pain in their final days was regarded as legal in the
perception of methodical freedom (Keown 21). As such, the permission to let patients end their
anguish willingly is not only vindicated but also necessary in safeguarding the right to individual
and physical independence. Also, individuals in the late stages of their incurable illnesses
frequently end up incapacitated. They are usually dependent on relatives and nurses for basic
tasks such as showering, visiting the toilet, and bathing. Such can be humiliating to the patients.
Therefore, they tend to choose to be given a dignified death through euthanasia process. Giving a
dying person the chance to make decisions regarding what time and how they want to perish
allows them to take control of their existence. In addition, euthanasia also helps eliminate the
Last Name 6
fear of financial burden. Inadequate funding for pain management and mollifying care, and
administration’s resilience on nurturing institutions has contributed to despair among the old age
(Paterson 21). As a result, the persons prefer to settle for euthanasia than spend large amounts of
Many people who are dying always want to help others live as themselves they have a
limited life. They always do not want other people to suffer and go through the same suffering in
life as they did. The incurable disease can run ramped and, in most cases, will cause destruction
of the body as well as organ failure. Euthanized patients can donate their organs to other patients
to save their lives. As such, if euthanasia is still prohibited, the organs can be damaged and
infected with disease thus no one can inherit them (Jacobs 23). In addition, no one will be saved
because the state laws, society, and religion did not allow the person who wanted to be
euthanized to die peacefully. Vital organs from the euthanized patients can be preserved and
given to patients who can be saved. Moreover, the needs of the living should be prioritized more
than those who are conclusive about their fate and have decided to die.
Some factors limit the legalization of euthanasia. Some of these factors are usually
influenced by various aspects of a country. There are some areas that the government should not
be involved or influence on how people do things. Government and insurance companies should
not get involved in any way at the end of life decisions. Conversely, insurance companies may
limit the doctors’ capability to cure a dying patient as they prohibit the doctor from conducting
some procedures that may save the life of the patient (Lundberg 22). Instead, the insurance
companies may end up paying the corrupt medical professionals and bribe them to perform
euthanasia on a patient so that the company can save money. The insurance companies instil a
Last Name 7
feeling of sickness in most people while euthanizing others as the public thinks they are saving
the patients.
Doctors have the power to save lives that would not be possible in previous years. The
ability of medical practitioners has significantly increased with the increase in technological
advancements. Doctors are not perfect and are sometimes influenced to become unethical and
unjust. As such, a wrong diagnosis might lead to the assisted suicide of a savable individual.
Doctors are trusted by the patients as well as the patients’ relations. As such, if the doctor
concludes that there is no hope, the patient’s family will concur and equally give up. The
shortage of medical staff and the doctors have to focus so much time on the patients that are
more vulnerable, and the doctor may suggest active euthanasia (De Lima 21). In some cases,
doctors bring their judgment and biasness into decision making thus making them unethical. The
use of euthanasia also is against the doctors’ sworn oath which is to protect the patients and
practice medicine ethically. Therefore, doctors should not be the only party involved in the
decision of ending the life of a patient. A doctor’s role should not be to take a person’s life, and
they should not be allowed to kill patients at their own free will.
In conclusion, euthanasia should be legalized to free patients from the agonies that their
illnesses are causing them. The process will save numerous lives and grant the person on the
verge of death their last wish. Patients want to be set free of the body that is pulling them back
and constraining them. Therefore, allowing them to be euthanized will grant them freedom from
their agony. Just like every other argument, euthanasia has its challenges, but the positive
impacts outweigh the negative impacts. As such, people with chronic illnesses should be granted
a free will to make this decision if the worst comes to worst. However, it should not be the first
solution to the problem, and it should be done with much dignity. Euthanasia must be the last
Last Name 8
option if applied at all, and only patients who have asked for it or family members to a patient
Works Cited
Lundberg, G.D., 1988. 'It's over, Debbie'and the euthanasia debate. JAMA, 259(14), pp.2142-
2143.
Griffiths, John, Heleen Weyers, and Maurice Adams. Euthanasia and law in Europe.
Levy, Gary. "The Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide." Canadian
Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalization.
Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. "Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
in the United States, Canada, and Europe." Jama 316.1 (2016): 79-90.
Paterson, Craig. Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach. Routledge,
2017.
De Lima, Liliana, et al. "International association for hospice and palliative care position
(2017): 8-14.
Cohen, Joachim, et al. "How accurately is euthanasia reported on death certificates in a country
(2018): 689-693.
Jacobs, Leonie, et al. "Euthanasia for broiler chickens: manual and mechanical cervical