The use of Euthanasia in the medical field has been a long debated topic and is still subject to controversy among today’s society. Gallup’s survey reveals that 68 percent of Americans hold that the practice of assisted suicide should be permissible by law. Because majority support does not necessarily express ideality, one must consider the effects of euthanasia in a holistic fashion to make viable conclusions. The use of euthanasia as a medical solution to undesired problems should not be legal in any form: The use of euthanasia diminishes the clear line of medicated treatment and medical abuse as well as influences individuals to devalue life and defiles the natural course of life.
In order for an individual to fabricate an appropriate …show more content…
As studies have shown that “93 to 94 percent of those committing suicide suffer from some identifiable mental disorder (Source G). To elaborate, people who have mental illnesses are likely to make distorted decisions and unlikely to register the implications of their decisions. Patients, who are considering assisted suicide should be checked for mental illnesses such as depression that may incline them to give up on their own life. Furthermore, mental illnesses such as depression are treatable, and the hopelessness that drives an individual to consider death as the only option can be reversed. While treatment for mental disorders should available for and recommended to those who qualify for it, euthanasia should not be considered a valid form of treatment for any person. Moreover, those who have failed to commit suicide often do not attempt it again in their life. In fact, a 1977 Swedish study revealed that who attempted suicide at some time between 1933 and 1942 found that only 10.9 percent of those eventually killed themselves in the subsequent 35 years (Source G).This conveys the fact that those who choose to undergo the process of euthanasia may not fully be committed to their decision and may have an underlying reluctance in their choice. These choices, however, cannot be reversed as choosing assisted suicide deprives an individual of the …show more content…
Their views are invalid upon the implication that right to die implies a natural event rather than an unnatural event, such as that administered through euthanasia (Source F). Right to die implies that there is some force or circumstance that is preventing an individual from dying, which is not the case with euthanasia. In this regard, the legalization of euthanasia may be seen more as the right to kill rather than to the right to die, as it involves a deliberate end to the life of an individual conducted by someone else. This can be seen with the court case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who participated in advocating for and administering lethal Euthanasia. After evidence of Kevorkian using fatal injections on patients surfaced, a Michigan jury found Kevorkian guilty of murder in 1999 (Source B). The fact that the jury convicted Kevorkian of murder after the administration of euthanasia expresses the fact that euthanasia can indeed i under homicide rather than death, further expanding on the principle that the use euthanasia is independent of the right to die
In order for an individual to fabricate an appropriate …show more content…
As studies have shown that “93 to 94 percent of those committing suicide suffer from some identifiable mental disorder (Source G). To elaborate, people who have mental illnesses are likely to make distorted decisions and unlikely to register the implications of their decisions. Patients, who are considering assisted suicide should be checked for mental illnesses such as depression that may incline them to give up on their own life. Furthermore, mental illnesses such as depression are treatable, and the hopelessness that drives an individual to consider death as the only option can be reversed. While treatment for mental disorders should available for and recommended to those who qualify for it, euthanasia should not be considered a valid form of treatment for any person. Moreover, those who have failed to commit suicide often do not attempt it again in their life. In fact, a 1977 Swedish study revealed that who attempted suicide at some time between 1933 and 1942 found that only 10.9 percent of those eventually killed themselves in the subsequent 35 years (Source G).This conveys the fact that those who choose to undergo the process of euthanasia may not fully be committed to their decision and may have an underlying reluctance in their choice. These choices, however, cannot be reversed as choosing assisted suicide deprives an individual of the …show more content…
Their views are invalid upon the implication that right to die implies a natural event rather than an unnatural event, such as that administered through euthanasia (Source F). Right to die implies that there is some force or circumstance that is preventing an individual from dying, which is not the case with euthanasia. In this regard, the legalization of euthanasia may be seen more as the right to kill rather than to the right to die, as it involves a deliberate end to the life of an individual conducted by someone else. This can be seen with the court case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who participated in advocating for and administering lethal Euthanasia. After evidence of Kevorkian using fatal injections on patients surfaced, a Michigan jury found Kevorkian guilty of murder in 1999 (Source B). The fact that the jury convicted Kevorkian of murder after the administration of euthanasia expresses the fact that euthanasia can indeed i under homicide rather than death, further expanding on the principle that the use euthanasia is independent of the right to die