If people have the right to live, do we also have the right to die? This question is what brought controversy to the situation concerning mercy killing. Today, mercy killing, properly known as euthanasia, is a term used when terminally ill patients request to be killed by doctors. Some countries contain laws regulating euthanasia, while other countries keep a neutral stance on the issue. However, people against the legalization of mercy killing fear for the possible consequences brought from it. People supporting euthanasia strongly believe in the “right to die” and our personal decisions of our lives. Despite their rights, mercy killing has many consequences that not only affect the patient, but anyone involved with the patient. As a result,
…show more content…
Laws in other foreign countries tend to specify the patients right to choose whether they want to live or die. However, this law disregards relatives or anyone close to the patient, which may react negatively to the patient’s decision on ending their life. For example, in the case involving Terri Schiavo, a woman suffering in a coma, her husband decided to remove her feeding tube without the consent of her parents. As a result, her parents fought a battle to keep her alive, which unfortunately lost, and witnessed the death of their daughter two weeks after the tube was removed (“Pros and Cons of Mercy Killing”). Despite the husband’s decision to end his wife’s suffering, he neglected her parents which eventually caused uproar for the life of Terri. One person shouldn’t decide on their fate alone, and should at least care enough to let those around them know about their decision. As quoted from Dr. Peter Saunders, a New Zealander who wrote an article on euthanasia, “no man is an island, No person makes the decision to end his or her life in isolation.” Saunders continues, stating that today we glorify someone’s decision of death, but forget the pain, guilt, or bitterness we may leave on the lives of others. While it may be the person’s right to choose, the people around us are just as important in the decision process. Aside from the patient, however, there have been cases where the doctor themselves make the decision. This is only administered if a patient is unconscious or semiconscious. However, this much power can potentially lead to
Laws in other foreign countries tend to specify the patients right to choose whether they want to live or die. However, this law disregards relatives or anyone close to the patient, which may react negatively to the patient’s decision on ending their life. For example, in the case involving Terri Schiavo, a woman suffering in a coma, her husband decided to remove her feeding tube without the consent of her parents. As a result, her parents fought a battle to keep her alive, which unfortunately lost, and witnessed the death of their daughter two weeks after the tube was removed (“Pros and Cons of Mercy Killing”). Despite the husband’s decision to end his wife’s suffering, he neglected her parents which eventually caused uproar for the life of Terri. One person shouldn’t decide on their fate alone, and should at least care enough to let those around them know about their decision. As quoted from Dr. Peter Saunders, a New Zealander who wrote an article on euthanasia, “no man is an island, No person makes the decision to end his or her life in isolation.” Saunders continues, stating that today we glorify someone’s decision of death, but forget the pain, guilt, or bitterness we may leave on the lives of others. While it may be the person’s right to choose, the people around us are just as important in the decision process. Aside from the patient, however, there have been cases where the doctor themselves make the decision. This is only administered if a patient is unconscious or semiconscious. However, this much power can potentially lead to