Euthanasia should be Illegal in Health Care

Euthanasia is a highly controversial topic that elicits two sides of the debate- in favor of intentional termination of life versus counteract death by euthanasia. The importance of having this discussion is to display the ramifications death by euthanasia presents. Various regions of the world changed society’s view on human life. On the surface, euthanasia appears to be an easy one step task that includes a lethal dosage of medication administered by a physician to patients living with terminal illnesses yet, the complexity of this debate heighten serious moral issues to a multitude of concerns; serious moral issues and lifelong effects on the lives of their loved ones.

In exploring negative effects of euthanasia, Margaret Somerville’s article “The case against: euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. (Physician-Assisted Suicide, Pro and Con)”, raise a couple of key points. Taking into account physician-assisted suicides honors patient’s self-determination to live. This concept of self-determination to live is rapidly growing in the U.S. This ideology of active voluntary euthanasia has devalued human life in result of advocates of the euthanasia movement.

Supporters of this movement created a perception that promotes confusion through misinformation in order to plead their case. Misinformation will consequently steer people who are in desperate search of alleviation from any physical, emotional, psychological disorders or terminal illnesses to directly withstand in their emotions to proceed with the prohibition of legalizing physician- assisted suicide. euthanasia in most U.S. states and many parts of the world. Most societies’ follow the rules in philosophy, law and theology in the bible.

One of the most well known biblical commands “Thou shall not kill.” supports the argument to stand against pre-determined death. Somerville’s secular argument is an essential source to this research combating the legalization of death by euthanasia. Somerville’s position explains the disadvantage of this ongoing issue depicted by the misconception that society regards people to simply end their life to no longer be a burden to society. Law is the act of order and justice a moral compass of values that constructs the way of life.

In conjunction, medicine is the act of care, restoration and cure. To disrupt these acts of social principles that may benefit one’s choice invites conflict amongst medical treatment. In the article, “euthanasia is a “gene machine” response”. It ecompass modern day society’s lack of moral compass that death should be planned and left in the hands of one’s own choice to live. Death is interpreted as fear of the unknown. Fear of being alone was the sole reason why sixty-nine years old Australian grandmother Nancy Crick chose to end her life by euthanasia as she was surrounded by tens of people.

Some cases have legalized this practice without providing people alternative options. Society’s contemporary view of death by euthanasia has hastily progressed across the U.S. The claims and actions of physicians who attempt to expose the truth behind many sources that support the euthanasia and PAS movement in order to stop the rise of death by euthanasia. An effective way of doing so is by setting an example and what better than to discuss the prohibition on deliberate killing.

People may benefit from Somerville’s argument because this may convince people to not participate in illegal acts such as euthanasia and PAS. It could possibly change their values in society to prevent a commitment of a crime. This may just be the solution to prevent people from becoming a possible culprit.

In all, death by euthanasia and PAS is not only wrong; its’ illegal and immortal. This new era of seeking a “good death” by euthanasia is viewed as an act of peaceful departure while others view this act through the lenses of a faith perspective view this act as a form of evil. 

Cite this page