Euthanasia: One’s Choice of Life or Death Essay

In recent years mercy killing has become a heated up debate. mercy massacreing has Greek roots as a good expiration. euthanasia has many definitions. Euthanasia is considered to be voluntary when it takes place in consonance with the wishes of a qualified case-by-case. Nonvoluntary euthanasia is done without knowledge of the uncomplainings wishes any because the forbearing has always been incompetent, is now incompetent, or has left no go on Directive. Involuntary euthanasia is done against the wishes of the competent individual or against the wishes convey in a valid Advanced Directive. Assisted suicide is comm exclusively defined as a specific situation in which at that place is a suicide, that is, an act of killing oneself intentionally.Physician assisted suicide is when the individual is given a lethal drug which they hind terminus use to kill themselves whenever they choose. Although the definitions may analysem clear, there is much confusion somewhat the sp eech used to describe euthanasia and other actions that result in hastening death. one-third states, Montana, operating theater, and Washington, seduce legalized euthanasia. My argument is euthanasia should be legalized in all cardinal states.One point of the heated debate is the slippery deliver that could maybe occur if euthanasia was legalized. Professor Phil D. Frey states that We need the evidence that shows that horrible slope consequences might occur, as noned earlier, does not constitute such evidence. In other words Phil D. Frey is saying it is possible that slippery slope meat can occur, just nothing shows that it is likely to happen. In Oregon, there be many step before one can qualify for euthanasia. These steps ensure that no slippery slope can occur.In Andrew Walters view, The Oregon last with Dignity characterization has served as a model statue in other state attempts to pass assisted suicide legislation. The act has several(prenominal) important provisi ons, read altogether, yield safeguard for the destinationly ill, the atomic number 101s that diagnose their terminal illness and the pharmacist that prescribes the lethal drugs. The essence of Andrew Walters argument is that The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was a strong first step towards the legitimation of euthanasia around the world. It shows that the legalization if euthanasia would not cause a slippery slope. Theact has many safeguards and provisions to forbid slippery slope. In 2006 Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act. To request a prescription for lethal medications the Death with Dignity Act requires 18 years or fourth-year Resident of Oregon Capable and able to make and communicate wellness c be decisions Diagnosed with a terminal illness that give lead to death in 6 months Once meeting the above requirements, the following are some of the steps that need to be followed in requesting a lethal medication The patient must make two oral requests to the physiolo gic separated by at least 15 days The patient must provide a written request to the physician gestural in the presence of two witnesses The prescribing physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to assisted suicide, including comfort care, hospice care and pain underwrite.Those who oppose euthanasia argue that slippery slope is most likely to happen. Most opponents give tell you that euthanasia is a step towards the legalization of murder. They argue plurality will end their lives because they are tired of living or see no worth in it. The opponents argue that the poor, minorities, the mentally ill, and the physically challenged will be some of the targeted groups of euthanasia. I argue the opponents are mistaken because they omit the provisions and safeguards of the Death with Dignity Act.Another issue is the compassionate castigate to demeanor and self-determination. According to Walter Andrew, Assisted suicide places the individual in control of his or he r future allowing the individual to decide how, when and where they die. Practical concerns also await the dying. After a terminally ill individual watches his savings flump while his medical costs and insurance premiums increase rapidly. Those unfamiliar with this rail of thought may be interested to know that it basically stewed down to an individuals correct to determine their end of life decisions. The United States Constitution protects our right to life and liberty. Opponents argue that the human right to die is not a fundamental liberty interest defend by the due processclause and that physicians are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, First, do no harm.I argue that physicians are not doing harm to patients. If a patient is in unbearable pain the physician is helping the patient by taking him out of his misery. If a competent individual is terminally ill, he should be able to control his destiny. If he cannot tolerate the pain, the pain cannot be managed by pain medication or he feels that he is a burden on family/community/society, it is the persons right to determine if he call fors to live. This right is consistent with the value of the human right to life and right of self-determination. One short but important fact is that if euthanasia were made legal, the patient would have had to have received the best medical care and pain management possible. This could muffle the chances of a slippery slope. It can also create healthier doctor-patient relationships by removing the fear of over parcel outment.Euthanasia can be necessary for the distribution of health resources. Around the world and especially in America there is a shortage of health resources. Some patients who are ill and can be cured are not able to get speedy bother to the facilities they require for treatment. Also, health resources are being used on multitude who cannot be cured and those who would prefer to die.Allowing those committed to euthanasia would not only let them have wh at they want, but will free valuable resources to treat people who want to live. Allowing the person who wants to die to initiate the process would prevent abuse. Those who oppose this will argue because they believe that such a final cause wide open to abuse and will ultimately lead to nonvoluntary euthanasia because of the shortage of health resources. I argue that euthanasia is a good way to free up resources for those who need the care and want to live, instead of using it on those that want to die.In conclusion, the debate about the legalization of euthanasia will continue for years to come, but I believe that the arguments for legalizing euthanasia overpower the arguments against it. Assisted suicide is a flying and painless death, instead of going through months of pain the patient can end their life on their own terms. The Death with Dignity Act ensures that the slippery slope will not happen. To preserve the dignity of human life, it is important that the remaining states and the federal governmentlegalize euthanasia to provide a safe and dignified way for terminally ill individuals to end their suffering.Works CitedArguments in Favour of Euthanasia. BBC.com. 14 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. . Arguments Against Euthanasia. BBC.com. 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. . Encyclopedia of Death and Dying. Euthanasia. N.p., 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. .Gorosh, David J. . Oakland Free Press Oakland 20 Mar. 1999 n. pag. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. Honan, Mathew. Legalize Assisted self-annihilation. Wired 17.10 (2009) 110. Science Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 1 Apr. 2010. Stokely, Anne. Counter Point The Right To Assisted Suicide. Points of View Assisted Suicide (2009) 6. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 1Apr. 2012. Walter, Andrew. Point Euthanasia Should Be Legal. Points of View Euthanasia (2009) 2. Points of View Reference. EBSCO. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.