Debate.org members
Euthanasia Debates
Euthanasia Debates
History and Debate of Euthanasia
Euthanasia is defined as the practice of ending a life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering. The process is also sometimes called Mercy Killing. Euthanasia can fall into several categories. Voluntary Euthanasia is carried out with the permission of the person whose life is taken. Involuntary euthanasia is carried out without permission, such as in the case of a criminal execution. The moral and social questions surrounding these practices are the most active fields of research in Bioethics today. Many Supreme Court cases, such as Gonzales v. Oregon and Baxter vs. Montana, also surround this issue.
Voluntary euthanasia is typically performed when a person is suffering from a terminal illness and is in great pain. When the patient performs this procedure with the help of a doctor, the term assisted suicide is often used. This practice is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. It is also legal in the state of Oregon, Washington and Montana. Passive euthanasia is carried out by terminating a medication that is keeping a patient alive or not performing a life-saving procedure. Active euthanasia involves the administration of a lethal drug or otherwise actively ending the life. These two types of procedures carry different moral and social issues.
Euthanasia Debate Controversy
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the issue of euthanasia and whether or not it should be legal. From a legal standpoint, the Encyclopedia of American Law categorizes mercy killing as a class of criminal homicide. Judicially, not all homicide is illegal. Killing is seen as excusable when used as a criminal punishment, but inexcusable when carried out for any other reason. In most nations, euthanasia is considered criminal homicide: however, in the jurisdictions mentioned above, it is placed on the other side of the table with criminal punishment.
Arguments regarding the euthanasia debate often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act made it legal for residents to request a lethal injection from a doctor. This is seen in other jurisdictions as being a criminal form of homicide. However, passive euthanasia through denial of drugs or procedures is considered to be legal in almost all jurisdictions. Those who argue for euthanasia feel that there is no difference. Those who are against it disagree.
Euthanasia and Religion
Many arguments also hinge on religious beliefs. Many Christians believe that taking a life, for any reason, is interfering with God's plan and is comparable to murder. The most conservative of Christians are against even passive euthanasia. Some religious people do take the other side of the argument and believe that the drugs to end suffering early are God-given and should be used.
One of the main groups of people who are involved with the euthanasia debate is physicians. One survey in the United States recorded the opinions of over 10,000 medical doctors and found that sixteen percent would consider stopping a life-maintaining therapy at the recommendation of family or the patient. Fifty five percent would never do such. The study also found that 46 percent of doctors believe that physician assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases.
The controversy surrounding euthanasia involves many aspects of religion, medical and social sciences. As this is one of the most studied fields of bioethics, one can rest assured that more studies will be performed to learn more about this issue and how to best address it.
For Euthanasia
Pro
Comment: Old people got no reason. Mandotory euthanisation
Comment: Self autonomy
Comment: People have a right to end their OWN suffering. No other individual may do it for them.
Comment: Youth in Asia.
Comment: The right to die is just as legitimate as the right to live; provided that it is consented, I see no problem with euthanasia.
Comment: Personal issue for me and I fully believe that voluntary painless death is always greater than prolonged painful suffering when the person is going to die soon anyways
Comment: Right to death.
Comment: The slippery slope argument against euthanasia can be said for Power of Attorney as well. You would have certain parameters for euthanasia, as you would with anything else.
Comment: If it's elective, then I'm fine with it.
Comment: Human life ain't worth ****.
Against Euthanasia
Con
Comment: Morally wrong on humans. For animals, it is very sad but sometimes it is needed.
Comment: It is hard to know if the person really wanted to die or they were murdered, and this opens up a series of problems as criminals can potentially get away with this.
Comment: You legalize Euthanasia then you give the gov. the right to kill the sick and elderly.
Comment: It is murder, it's not what a doctor should do and people should not put stress on people to kill them.
Comment: Ithinkitsetsadangerousprecedenttoadmitthat,insomecases,humanlifeisnotvaluable.
Comment: The death of an innocent human being should not be the responsibility of any man. Suicide is an option, and if someone wants to die, they should do it themselves, not force someone else to bear the burden of having killed an innocent man.
Comment: It is too subject to abuse by greedy heirs who would urge elders to depart. Might craft an exception for painful illness.
Comment: I oppose euthanasia for medical and practical reasons not religious reasons. I fear that if euthanasia is legalised physicians would abuse the system, vulnerable people would be terminated against their will and they would do nothing to stop it. I also fear that it would discourage scientific research on pain relief, which makes euthanasia pointless anyway.-
Comment: life is still precious no matter what the quality of it is
Comment: I don't include DNRs and taking someone off of life support as euthanasia. I think suicide is wrong, and should be illegal. In the same way, voluntary euthanasia as well as assisted suicide should be illegal.