[ad_1]
There is no doubt that the convictions and opinions regarding the fact that no one is given the right to take a person’s life. Reasons of the said arguments may be religious, political, and medical but it is important to preserve life, except in unavoidable circumstances, the second. This article will address how euthanasia or assisted suicide, was viewed by the community as a whole. It will also discuss why euthanasia is advantageous and disadvantageous for the person who needs care.
Euthanasia was known as mercy killing because of the characteristic of the euthanasia. Knowing the history of the lid murder will improve our knowledge of the same, but not really increase the value of our arguments on both sides. In places like Germany, which was once ruled by Adolf Hitler, euthanasia was really followed that basically gives permission to end the lives of patients suffering from painful ailments. There are rules in order to permit euthanasia in connection with allowing to destroy life that is unworthy of life. These main principles include the presence of the advisory board that will review each case of mercy killing, permission for the patient to reduce such a request for euthanasia and mercy killing will be done under controlled conditions and prudence. It is also necessary to give legal protection to a doctor who helped the patient to die.
But before the said situation in Germany, the ancient historical accounts of euthanasia when to haunt the community. The Greek physician Hippocrates called that existed for about 400 BC then gave the oath pertaining to the dis-allowance of giving medicines that could end a life that is unworthy of life. From the 14th century to the 20th century, English Common Law also considered a mercy killing as inappropriate and someone that euthanasia will be considered guilty of murder and capital. In the 19th century, there was even a rule in both American and English law as criminals or prisoners who asked another person to assist his suicide will be tried for murder despite the impending plan for implementation. But at this moment, these rules against euthanasia is being reviewed and investigated because of the advent of powerful and persuasive arguments that supported mercy killing.
historical perspective euthanasia is the Hippocratic oath unilaterally on patient care no matter what the consequences may be. However, as time goes by, to die with dignity is what some patients cry when suffering a painful illness. As such, the advent of the ethics of patient care has been revised to depart patients will. As for the political side, Republicans in the US are against murder cover while the Democrats support it.
The disadvantages euthanasia rest of the physical and mental welfare of the person. In order to preserve life, no matter how unworthy it may be the main and indispensable rule. First, we can not equate human life to the life of an animal. If euthanasia is carried out in the interests of animals that they should not experience the same treatment that they are worth more than animals. Second, euthanasia is immoral for Catholics and other faiths. Preserving life ailing patient’s response to God’s commandment that we should love one another, no matter what. However, we should also consider the situation there is no other remedy for a patient suffering pains due to illness. Sometimes assist a patient suffering painfully illness is something that his heart desires.
In accordance with this, we must be aware of the abuse of the right to die. In the Netherlands, for example, mercy killing is often misused as a duty to die. Out of personal interests, many patients were killed in the guise of euthanasia makes victims helpless to fight for his life. Some families of these patients were not consulted act of mercy killing. So, this is the basic disadvantage euthanasia that plagued the community in general.
Third, euthanasia comes in three forms which are voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary sometimes done improperly. There is no problem with voluntary euthanasia for the patient is that the request for mercy killing. Patient suffering unbearable so that mercy killing was requested. On the other hand, non-voluntary euthanasia is the worst of all types mercy killing. In that case, euthanasia is a time where there has not been consulted person for his or her death and is unaware of the intentions of the attending physician to do so. There is no acceptance on the part of the victim of the impending euthanasia him as it was made and decided in the exclusion of the patient. This kind of behavior is not acceptable and it violates the ethical standard of patient care. What is the use of medical intervention when patients are not given the chance to know their names into the hands of a doctor? There is none. The only thing that the patient may feel confusion is in addition to the pain he suffered when having such diseases. All these situations happen in the Northern Territories in Australia and the Netherlands because of the legalization of euthanasia in these areas. In connection with it, Alonzo, that:
“Non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person makes use of non-verbal communication (eg mention that one would like to try other doctors but roll their eyes at the reflection) to articulate the desire of people to die, so death is accepted by the doctor to perform the alleged request of the patient. ” In this case, it is obvious that the patient is denied the right to speak up for their own destiny. If almost all the practices euthanasia are prepared in this way, then it must be stopped. “
On the other hand, there are also reliable benefits euthanasia. Patients suffering from terminal illness can feel the pain of facing the same until it kills them. The thought of undergoing such a difficult situation could lead to suicide with medical assistance or euthanasia for the patient to be freed from such a difficult process. such a frightening situation one could make the resort a patient mercy killing as decided by the family. in this case, there are two questions that should be considered. firstly whether it should hand over the head support to kill themselves, and second, whether the same person should be forced to endure the pain and indignity of terminal illness.
Based on the conscience of humanity and aside from religious beliefs, it is not right to force already suffering patient take the pain of terminal illness. If there are other means to help the patient, it should be done immediately. When all else are considered and it was found that the patient will surely die, then the patient must be allowed to ensure mercy killing method . If the patient is too weak to ask for mercy killing, it is the time that the family of the patient will decide together with your doctor. It is too useless for the patient to live a little longer when indignity equivalent. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the physician to use all reasonable and ethical ways to put an end to the suffering of the patient unworthy.
Another question is this mercy killing useful work? The answer is positive. This is because not all situations require the following religious and moral ends when the result is useless. For example, a patient who suffers painfully terminal illness might have worked his dignity if euthanasia was made in his favor. We simply can not bear the suffering patient who is waiting for his eventual death in the worst condition. After all, the patient will die no matter what. Assisted death is only appropriate when the patient is too weak to take active steps to end his life. Patients who can still bear the suffering can not offer mercy killing so as to avoid abuse of office. The disabilities of patients suffering terminal illness should not prevent their willingness to complete a painful experience. They must be assisted in the name of fairness and equity.
Another argument is that mercy killing can only affect one person and it is not fair to other people to prevent the same. Nevertheless, the person who requested mercy killing wanted it to happen in order to reduce the pain. Other people’s opinions about morality and usefulness of euthanasia not matter when a patient suffers pain decided that such a step should be taken in his favor. While it is true that we have no right to take the life of a person, it is also acceptable that we have no right to let a person suffering from indescribable pain due to terminal illness. If fairness and respect are things that make a community intact, then why should we allow the patient to earn the shame of terminal illness? Our responsibility is to weight things and use logic and reason aside from understanding the whole problem. Without it, we will lose the very essence if the legislation and the implementation of justice and equality. It is unfair to force a patient to suffer pain when he can no longer bear it while being alive. So euthanasia or assisted suicide, to save such patients.
religious groups will always opine that euthanasia is immoral. Politicians are also in the hot seat to debate the legality and necessity of mercy killing. Society as a whole is still trying to learn the material as it was never easy or common. In addition, there are things to keep in mind to argue about euthanasia. The first is the willingness of the patient to die in painful suffering terminal illness, and second, the ethical standard of patient care. These two materials are difficult to accept there are pros and cons euthanasia. The main disadvantage of mercy killing is the fact that it has been misused and abused by people involved in it. However, mercy killing is very important just to help a patient who is suffering pain due to terminal illness. It is realistic to complete the life of a patient suffering too much pain that turns out to be unbearable. But this should be done fairly, by a doctor for the Hippocratic oath that says mischievous acts against patients should not be done is still enforced even up to this time. Therefore, it is the responsibility of participating in euthanasia to use all reasonable ideas and moral standards to conduct the same.
[ad_2]
Source by KL Lopez