Yes,because euthanasia is much more humane than withdrawal of life support which is complete torture,letting someone suffocate or starve is just barbaric,euthanasia is a more humane option. We need to focus more on the best humane option for a life support patient who has already gone through massive suffering,euthanasia will end the suffering quickly and painlessly,while withdrawal of life support may not always be quickly and painlessly.
Euthanasia should be legal because people who are suffering from an illness and are going to end up dying shouldn't be suffering in the hospital upset that they are stuck there and can't get out and live life while they can with the people that they love. These people can instead die with dignity instead of dying in the hospital, this saves the person the pain and it also saves their family the pain. If their family knows how much longer they have to live , they will spend every single moment with them and they will have time to process thoughts, and let the person know how much they really love them.
Withdrawing life support equates to the same thing as euthanasia at the end of the day. The decision to withdraw life support means a decision that the patient is at the end of their life has already been made. That is the only reason that life support would be withdrawn. Therefore if the decision has already been made, then why prolong the agony, not only for the patient but for the people who love them. Euthanasia allows that person to die with their family at their side, their husband or wife holding their hand, rather than run the risk of the patient dying in their sleep, randomly, when they finally succumb.
A lot of the con arguments I have seen or moral and religiously based. Let's acknowledge that no everyone is religious nor do all people have the same moral values. Many people on life support have a very limited life style and if they decide they want to go because they don't want to see their family suffering or they don't want to let them pay for it then they should have that choice over their own body. I've seen some arguments saying just letting someone off life support is more humane. I'd like to counter this by asking if forcing someone to live this dreadful life without choice of what happens to them is humane? Is it humane to let someone not choose what happens to them, to not let them have their dignity?
People living on life support must be restricted to a bed until the end usually. Especially patients' in the ICU cannot even move without possibly pulling a tube out of their body that is keeping alive. Euthanasia also allows people to get away from the extreme agony some are faced with. This is a way to make an extended painful death into a quick painless one. Patients on life support feel bad for their families who are paying 2-3 thousand dollars a day to keep life support going. They do not like to see their family members in stressful situations like sending themselves bankrupt to keep a child, parent or sibling alive for a more extended amount of time than their illness prescribes.
Why would I want to use medication to endure the pain and whittle away with ongoing and unforgivable pain? Why would I want my family member to feel guilty for the rest of their life because they had to make the decision to pull me off life support? And why would I want to seize to death in pain when I could fall into a peaceful rest?
Euthanasia is a means to end a person's suffering whether it be physical or mentally. No one should have to suffer and be in unbearable pain, over medicated, and feel as if they are merely a live corpse. Life should be about quality not quantity. Plus it is the patient's right to have a say in how they should die. Insted of being found in an uncompromising position if they commit suicide with out assistance compromises their dignity, with euthanasia this will not be an issue. Again this is about the patient's right and dignity, not about religion or politics. For the ones who think people will take advantage of this, people take advantage of everything, for every good something does their is a negative, but that does not mean you do a way with it.
There is no need to prolong the life of someone that has no chance of ever living a productive life again. This is especially true for those that have expressed their desire to be taken off of life support, if the situation was ever to arise.
Euthanasia should be available to people on life support if they, or their family, so choose. People should be allowed to die with dignity. If we can euthanize animals to end their suffering, why shouldn't we allow people that same courtesy? People should be treated as humanely, if not more than, animals.
Euthanasia is preferable to the withdrawal of life support because it is more humane. When life support is withdrawn, despite efforts to make the patient comfortable he may suffer or otherwise be in distress, for example from breathing difficulties. This can go on for some time. If the patient or the patient's family has decided that the right thing to do is allow the patient's life to end, it should be done as humanely as possible.
Almost all religions are against euthanasia and people should always have hope that this person that might be in a coma might have 0.01% in coming back to life so they should always have hope even though the percentage of him coming to life again is so little, it is a hard decision to take but it's a matter of life and death and only God makes this decision not humans and you would never know what could happen.
Euthanasia is giving aid to the death of another in a controlled hospital environment. It is usually by request of the patient. This is seen as a crime in our community, because it is aiding in another's demise. Medications can be given to ease the discomfort of the dying. Withdrawal of life support also results in death. However, this is usually only done with a person who is so significantly injured, with most likely no chance of recovery, and usually on a machine to keep their heart beating.
Euthanasia is a highly-charged moral dilemma. Removal from life support is more clear cut, since it allows a natural death and allows the person to live, if possible.
For one thing, euthanasia is illegal here in America so therefore it is not preferable on that standpoint alone. But withdrawal of life support is actually the natural way to die and the only way if you believe in God.
A doctor has the right to give a patient more drugs or to even inject them with extra of a medicine which will result in killing them without consoling them. This happens when a doctor decides that his/her patient is not capable of making a right decision. So he comes and injects the innocent patient that was not even given the right to keep his life, or choose his fate causing his/her death. Plus, Islam dos not allow the death of human lives if their brain is still working, because a person does not own this soul, no one owns this soul, to kill it or take it away but god. And no one ever knows what is going to happen to this patient, nothing is impossible, and Islam motivates patience.
Withdrawing life support is not murder because it is just equipment acting as the person's organs. The person's own organs are unable to sustain life, therefore they are kept going by artificial means. Euthanasia however, is the direct killing of a human being and is therefore wrong. Withdrawing life support is not immoral, but directly causing the death of another is.
Euthanasia and withdrawal of life support are both tough decisions and should both be handled with the utmost sensitivity. Withdrawal of life support can be either a decision made by the family or made by the person themselves before the illness or accident. Euthanasia is generally decided upon by the person themselves. Nether option should be considered better or easier.