Synopsis on Euthanasia Essay Example

to be killed, and non voluntary euthanasia is when a person I killed but did not made a request, so the decision wasn’t made by the person who was killed.

Abovementioned is concerning whether it is with or without the person’s consent, and the following definitions is how it is done. Both by action and by omission. Euthanasia by action, is when a person intentionally causing someone’s death by action, for example the doctor with the injection. Euthanasia by omission, is when a person indirectly is causing another person’s death, it could be due the lack of food or water. The last term I am going to explain is assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is when someone provides a person to take his/her own life.

Something I have to make clear, is when the death is not intentionally, it is not euthanasia. Some would maybe argue that passive euthanasia is not euthanasia, since it is not intentionally, but I do not think that it correct. The reason I think it is not, is because passive euthanasia is in my opinion the same as euthanasia by omission or by act. An example of passive euthanasia could be, switching off life-supporting machines, which is an act causing death therefore, I do not think that it is not euthanasia.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide is legal in 4 states of the US, Oregon, Washington, Montana and in limited circumstances Texas as well. It’s also legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Albania these places are the only in world where laws specifically permit euthanasia or assisted euthanasia. Although Many countries worldwide have tried to legalize euthanasia, but have failed, for instance our neighbor Norway.

Assessment and Discussion To start from the beginning, medical science was originally just about saving lives, since then there has been a radical attitude change.

The disagreement is huge on this subject, most countries are still against although more and more countries tries to make it legal. So let’s take a look on the arguments for and against. There is typically 3 main argues for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Probably the major argument in favor of euthanasia is the argument about unbearable pain, does the government have the right to make people suffer? Another argument is that everyone has the right to commit suicide, everyone has their free will, therefore everyone has the right to commit suicide.

But we are not talking about giving a right to be killed, but to the person who does the killing. Ergo is euthanasia no longer about the right to die, but about the right to kill. Furthermore people do have the power to commit suicide, worldwide approximately a million people committed suicide last year. Besides, should people be forced to stay alive? There does not exist such a law, and it’s neither punishable to commit suicide in Denmark, therefore there is nothing forcing anyone to live.

On the other hand, euthanasia would not only be for people who are terminally ill. How do you define terminally ill? This is a essential problem, some would maybe define terminally ill as any disease, another as life threatening disease. Furthermore is euthanasia going to be non voluntary, some people would probably force other people to use euthanasia, or people will be put under pressure to end their lives etc. financial or family . People

might recover from an illness, or the doctors diagnosis might be wrong. There are many arguments both for and against.

I do not believe that euthanasia is okay, I think it is murder. It might could be justified by the fact that most people would choose death, if it was a choice between death and a constitution of life. Furthermore I find it more acceptable to force someone to stay alive than force someone to die. This raises the question of dignity, though I do not think It would be fair to say that this is a question of dying with dignity. There are people who are dying slowly of an illness, but still don’t want help to die, they are in my opinion brave.

Earlier I said I think euthanasia is murder, how can that come? Murder is when the act directly leads to another person’s death, according to the Danish Criminal Code intentional homicide, is when the killing was intentional. The death had to be intentionally, which were the same in the definition of a murder. So if we compare murder with non voluntary euthanasia, before any of them can be for filled, it must be intentionally and non voluntary, and they both is. So what is the difference?

And in the same category, is abortion okay or is murder? This depends on when you define a fetus as a human being, which there is a considerable disagreement about. And if euthanasia is all right, why use doctors then? when they can be replaced by a “suicide booth”? a “suicide booth” is a fictional machine for committing suicide, it has replaced the telephone booth and as

ironic as it is, it has 3 different modes of death, so you will also have the opportunity to choose how you will get killed.

Conclusion From this I deduce that no one has the duty to kill us, if we wish to die, neither is no one forcing anyone us to stay alive. The government does not have the right to make people suffer, and most cases can be solved with some drugs. On the other hand if no one has the duty to kill us, and we have the right to die, the only solution seems to be passive euthanasia. Furthermore it would probably lead to non voluntary euthanasia , and thereby people will be put under pressure.

So I reached the conclusion rather force someone to stay alive, than force some to die. List of literature http://www. euthanasia. com/ http://www. bbc. co. uk/ethics/euthanasia/ http://internationaltaskforce. org/faq. htm https://www. retsinformation. dk/Forms/R0710. aspx? id=126465 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Suicide_booth ”Space Pilot 3000” - Futurama, Matt Groening and David X Cohen ”Bioethics: principles, issues and cases” - Oxford University, Lewis Vaughn “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach” - Craig Paterson