Register to read the introduction…
If doctors are enabled the decision to terminate a life on behalf of a unconscious patient, they would be then granted a power over society that not only breaches the Hippocratic Oath, but also empowers them to “play God”. This responsibility could then reflect upon society, altering their views and their trust within doctors and medical professionals as they could then be seen as “providers of death” (Cosic, 2003. 25) In addition to this, a doctor’s decision to terminate a life may not rely on the condition and best interests of the patient, but instead of amount of hospital beds and facilities that are
…show more content…
As Philip Nitschke states within his book, Killing Me Softly, “these people are not sick. They simply believe they have reached a stage in life when they are ready to die.” These stakeholders argue that they should have the right to make a decision regarding their own life, which in fact, is an acceptable argument as the act of suicide is legal within Australia. However, if they require assistance with their death, those who are involved are threatened with violation Australian legislation. As stated under the Commonwealth Crime Act (1974), assisting a person with suicide is illegal; hence, if anyone had tried to assist a person with suicide, they would suffer serious consequences themselves. Even if this legislation was abolished, and Euthanasia laws introduced, the moral standards of society would most definitely be affected by this new “right to die”.
Euthanasia is an issue so interwoven within human rights and ethics that it cannot be ignored and must be addressed with Australian society. As the Euthanasia debate consists of many different arguments and stakeholders, one issue cannot be addressed and evaluated without consulting the “bigger picture”. Evidently, if Euthanasia became legal throughout Australia, there would be many implications that would follow. Firstly, religious parties would not agree with the decision that has been made, and would possibly rally and protest against those hospitals and health care centres that acted upon euthanasia
As Philip Nitschke states within his book, Killing Me Softly, “these people are not sick. They simply believe they have reached a stage in life when they are ready to die.” These stakeholders argue that they should have the right to make a decision regarding their own life, which in fact, is an acceptable argument as the act of suicide is legal within Australia. However, if they require assistance with their death, those who are involved are threatened with violation Australian legislation. As stated under the Commonwealth Crime Act (1974), assisting a person with suicide is illegal; hence, if anyone had tried to assist a person with suicide, they would suffer serious consequences themselves. Even if this legislation was abolished, and Euthanasia laws introduced, the moral standards of society would most definitely be affected by this new “right to die”.
Euthanasia is an issue so interwoven within human rights and ethics that it cannot be ignored and must be addressed with Australian society. As the Euthanasia debate consists of many different arguments and stakeholders, one issue cannot be addressed and evaluated without consulting the “bigger picture”. Evidently, if Euthanasia became legal throughout Australia, there would be many implications that would follow. Firstly, religious parties would not agree with the decision that has been made, and would possibly rally and protest against those hospitals and health care centres that acted upon euthanasia