Since humans or animals are born the instinct of survival and caring for others is activated. Regardless of age, gender or race, each individual is entitled to his or her self-preservation. The innate that every human life is precious and the duty to maintain personal welfare is unconsciously known and has been preserved through generations. Also, it is morally sound to say that we also have a responsibility to avoid inflicting harm towards others, whether the person is known or are total strangers. This instinct has existed since humans inhabited the earth, but science has changed this with the practice of “painless killing” of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma known as euthanasia” (commonweal).
…show more content…
They believed that “medicine must both acknowledge and teach us its limits in staving off for a time our natural end, our own mortality. Though, it must like all of us finally bow to death, medicine must never directly assist our dying”(Commonweal). Most of the causes to opposed euthanasia are these religious beliefs. In the Catholic Church “human life is considered sacred and inviolable, but is not considered and absolute” (Commonweal). Therefore they believed that God is the only one who can decide when a patient end has come and the terms of it. Society feels that it is god 's task to determine when one of his creations time has come, and human beings are in no position to behave as god and end their lives or others. When humans take it upon themselves to shorten their lives or to have others to do it for them they are playing God. They argue that society is being asked to approve a form of state sanctioned murder. “Even if the individual feels his or her life no longer has meaning, has been deprived of sense of autonomy, or should not be held hostage to someone else’s definition of life’s value, society cannot legitimate assisting or accelerating that individual’s premature death. Human life does not deliver its unique value merely from its usefulness- whether to oneself or the others “ …show more content…
One of these reasons is “the right to your own death, based on the principle of autonomy and your right as an individual to make your own choices in life, even concerning when, where and how to die” (Karlsson). This gives patients the liberty to choose, when science in some way has fail them with a cure, to decide their way of dying. Euthanasia is sometimes the only option left. Putting an end to the misery would be lot easier; and dying peaceful under the tender affectionate gaze of our loved ones would be the death worthwhile. Living is about quality of life and the ability to have a life. It is not just about breathing and bodily
They believed that “medicine must both acknowledge and teach us its limits in staving off for a time our natural end, our own mortality. Though, it must like all of us finally bow to death, medicine must never directly assist our dying”(Commonweal). Most of the causes to opposed euthanasia are these religious beliefs. In the Catholic Church “human life is considered sacred and inviolable, but is not considered and absolute” (Commonweal). Therefore they believed that God is the only one who can decide when a patient end has come and the terms of it. Society feels that it is god 's task to determine when one of his creations time has come, and human beings are in no position to behave as god and end their lives or others. When humans take it upon themselves to shorten their lives or to have others to do it for them they are playing God. They argue that society is being asked to approve a form of state sanctioned murder. “Even if the individual feels his or her life no longer has meaning, has been deprived of sense of autonomy, or should not be held hostage to someone else’s definition of life’s value, society cannot legitimate assisting or accelerating that individual’s premature death. Human life does not deliver its unique value merely from its usefulness- whether to oneself or the others “ …show more content…
One of these reasons is “the right to your own death, based on the principle of autonomy and your right as an individual to make your own choices in life, even concerning when, where and how to die” (Karlsson). This gives patients the liberty to choose, when science in some way has fail them with a cure, to decide their way of dying. Euthanasia is sometimes the only option left. Putting an end to the misery would be lot easier; and dying peaceful under the tender affectionate gaze of our loved ones would be the death worthwhile. Living is about quality of life and the ability to have a life. It is not just about breathing and bodily