Question+of+the+Right+to+Euthanasia

=Question of the Right to Euthanasia=

April 7th, 2009 -
= = Throughout the course of history, numerous controversial issues have been remorselessly perplexing the human race. Specifically, the question of the right to euthanasia is by far one of the most controversial ones due to the controversy that encompasses numerous religious, social, and humanitarian aspects. For example, in //Evangelium Vitae//, an encyclical that expresses the position of the Catholic Church regarding the value and inviolability of human life, Pope John Paul II has stated, “Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.” Not only did the Catholic Church express its enmity toward euthanasia, but other religious groups have also expressed their positions against euthanasia. However, while religious groups are expressing their negative viewpoints regarding the issue of euthanasia, Dr. Philip Nitschke, an Australian medical doctor, humanist, and founder of the pro-euthanasia group Exit International, is still actively campaigning for the right to a dignified death through euthanasia and acquiring a prodigious amount of support from the public. As a result, although extremely devoted religionists might fervently insist that euthanasia is a serious crime of giving up one’s sacred life, the fact that worthless, painful, and hopeless medical treatments torture both the patient and the patient’s loved ones is absolutely unquestionable. Consequently, it is strongly recommended for the international community to fully legalize voluntary euthanasia and grant the human population the right to a dignified death. //Bottom of this statement is a table that has a simple analysis of the arguments for and against euthanasia://
 * ** Arguments For ** || **Arguments Against ** ||
 * Everyone has the right to choose whether he or she is going to live or die. || Since life is sacred, death is not an option to choose. ||
 * Death is not always a bad thing. || Regulations will not be able to control the use of euthanasia in case the use of euthanasia is abused. ||
 * Regulations will be able to control the use of euthanasia in case the use of euthanasia is abused. ||^  ||
 * Voluntary euthanasia would be the most realistic and the best solution. || Any type of euthanasia would devalue life. ||
 * We have to consider the amount of pain the patient and the patient’s family members and friends would experience. || If voluntary euthanasia is allowed, involuntary euthanasia will eventually be allowed just like the slippery slope effect. ||
 * When you waste all those medical resources for a terminally ill patient, you can use those medical resources to save others in the world such as those in impoverished and conflict-affected nations || Euthanasia is against the will of God. ||
 * ^  || Doctors are supposed to save life, not kill life. ||

Generally being defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irremediable state of unconsciousness, euthanasia suggests agonizing moral questions such as: There is a difference between killing someone and allowing someone to die. First of all, the situation of killing someone is a condition in which one cannot express his or her will regarding the issue of his or her death. Allowing someone to die, however, means that the individual actually has a choice, but he or she has made the choice to die. Furthermore, I strongly believe that no one has the right to prevent someone else’s life to end because it is his or her right to decide whether he or she is going to live or die. There is nothing wrong with another person ending someone’s life in order to save that person from a seemingly eternal pain because it not only tortures the actual patient, but it also tortures the patient’s loved ones including his or her family members and friends; for example, leaving a terminally ill patient at the hospital to be cared gives the patient’s family members an extreme financial burden. What is the point of spending a vast amount of money for a hospital fee when it is hundred-percent sure that the patient will never be cured? Would the patient not feel better when he or she decreases the amount of pain for his or her family members? Moreover, it just gives more pain for the patient both physically and mentally by causing depression, never-ending vomiting, permanent immobilization, and others. I believe it is only right for the process of euthanasia to be held when the patient himself or herself requests for it, which is also known as the process of voluntary euthanasia. However, if a third-person cannot clearly identify the patient’s will regarding the issue of death, euthanasia should not be an option, but if euthanasia is held based on a third-person view, the person who had issued euthanasia shall be judged as a murderer.
 * 1.** **Is there a difference between killing someone and allowing someone to die?**
 * 2.** **Is it right for another person to mark a final punctuation in someone’s life in order to save that person from a seemingly eternal pain?**
 * 3.** **Under what circumstances is it right for the process of euthanasia to be held?**

(//Starting from this date, I read three articles that went against the legalization of euthanasia. By doing this, I tried to listen to the opposition’s perspective and thought whether it could persuade me to go against euthanasia.//)

April 9 th, 2009 -
Today, I read a news article that was about euthanasia. Specifically, the news article informed the public that Luxembourg became the fourth country in the world to legalize euthanasia. More specifically, it was a critical article that had a negative viewpoint on the legalization of euthanasia by stating that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg was forced by the parliament of Luxembourg to legalize euthanasia. Also, the article said that Columbia, Netherlands, and Belgium were scrutinized by other nations for legalizing euthanasia. I personally believe that the author of this article is very biased and has a very negative view on the issue of euthanasia. I do not believe that other nations “scrutinizing” Columbia, Netherlands, and Belgium represent the fact that other nations are reprimanding them for legalizing euthanasia. Also, I believe that one individual, the Grand Duke, does not have the absolute power to overrule anything. As a result, the parliament, which is the majority, has the right to decide what is going to be permitted or not.

April 10 th, 2009 -

 * Today, I found a news article from the Mirrors news. The article argues that the majority of the doctors are against euthanasia. However, I would like to know where the author of this article found this information. Euthanasia is an issue that can never be solved through statistics. Furthermore, if the author found this fact that only covers up British medical doctors, it is highly questionable whether the author knows that there are billions of doctors in the world. As a result, this article could not convince me to go against euthanasia. **

April 11 th, 2009 -
Today, I read an article written by Daniel Allott. This article portrayed some specific cases such as that of Barbara Wagner, who was recommended by a health organization for a doctor-assisted suicide. Even though I am a supporter of euthanasia, I believe that cases like this need some changes, which the United Nations should do if this topic gets to be debated for a consistent amount of time. I also believe that euthanasia should only be mentioned when the actual patient mentions it because it is very disrespectful for a third-person to recommend euthanasia before the actual patient does. As a result, this article gave me a clear insight on the issue of how the policy of euthanasia should be managed and the deplorable current state of the policy of euthanasia.

Links -
[] [] [] [] [] 