Why Euthanasia Should be Legalised Under Free Will

March 2, 2018
Custom User Avatar
More by this author

“I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but only the stroke of death,” stated by Francis Bacon, a well-known philosopher who came up with the term "Euthanasia”. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word of ‘good death.’ The concept of euthanasia is to get physician-assisted suicide as a patient where they inject you with morphine and other drugs that decrease your breathing up until the point where you die. Euthanasia has always created a controversial topic as it dabbles on different aspects such as the hippocratic oath, the will to live/right to die, and the division of slippery slope to legalized murder.


"The aim of medicine is to heal and not to kill (National Library of Medicine).” The hippocratic oath is a Greek statement of Medicine given by the God of healing and medicine, Apollo. This oath states that in the medical world, you are not permitted to kill your patients or do anything to speed the process of dying. The idea of Euthanasia contradicts the Hippocratic oath due to how by committing physician assisted suicide means that under the patients will, you end their life. In most cases in the US, most states don't accept the law of euthanasia with a exception of Washington DC, California, Colorado, Oregon and Vermont (The Guardian).


Apart from state laws, every human being has the right to live and the will to die. Every hospitalized patient has the right to die as they may be terminally sick and they have a choice to end their intolerable suffering by choosing to bring an end to their life. According to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Unit), “A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the will to live is also a supporting factor due to how they can be used to refuse care after being diagnosed as terminally ill after a certain amount of support is shown (Neuman).”
Overall, apart from contradicting laws, the concept of euthanasia also dabbles onto a slippery slope to legalized murder. All arguments, primarily based on slippery slopes, lead to a contradiction of ethical teachings and in this case, an ethical landscape is affected as moral teachings are questioned with the permissibility to conduct a certain act, in this case to conduct physician-assisted suicide. Yet in society nowadays, the slippery slope argument doesn’t create as big of a moral distinction since euthanasia is legalized through moral consent. “If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent? (Pellegrino).”


In conclusion, I standby my opinion that euthanasia should be legalized globally since every human being has a right to die. In occasions, where patients are fatally sick and cannot change their path, they should all have a choice on euthanasia instead of withstanding sickness and endless pain. Furthermore, the conflict of Euthanasia intervenes with aspects such as those of the right to die, the will to live, the hippocratic oath, and battling a slippery slope onto legalized murder.






Post a Comment

Be the first to comment on this article!

Site Feedback