| seeker |
January 4th, 2011 3:40 PM |
The biggest issue with supporting euthanasia would be that if we were to allow people merely be assisted in suicide, that it would no longer become a voluntary state and that it could just as well be abused in the sense that people would choose to undergo euthanasia for reasons not relating to illness (this is an extremist view of the possibilities of the underlying topic at hand). The state of human morality is inextricably linked to that of the action of euthanasia. If we start making assisted suicide worldwide legal, then questions will be put against the morality of mankind, lines will be blurred and we will ask where the line has gone, when we have passed it, and the answer will be when we see that there's been acts of euthanasia in which were unneeded or unjustified. The idea of mercy killing is seen in many lights; people claim it to be sick and twisted yet their arguments are drawn parallel to the perspective of those who believe that human life has the option to end in a dignified sense.
Mostly we see religion being the barrier to euthanasia being legalized, a large chunk of the world's population would go with the view of their religion over the view of the state, thus any ruling towards the justification of universal legal euthanasia is far from inevitable. The chruch would see it as being that even when not motivated by a selfish refusal to be burdened with the life of someone who is suffering, euthanasia must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing "perversion" of mercy. Referenced from the gospel of Life.
However, in 2009, Britain and Canada had over 70% support in polls to encourage Euthanasia. Even in the US, 45% support it over 32% who don't (the rest being those who were not sure). Views supporting the act simply bear the strong argument that people should not be allowed to suffer in an undignified state in their final remaining days on Earth. And that is the argument. The opposing ones however, take into consideration possible relapses of this, and many are possible in this dynamic and fickle modern day morality.
My stance is that it should remain between the doctor, family and the patient. There should be the state where the person is in immense pain during their terminal illness and that they should still be able to administer the lethal drug themselves or in a such a way that they are strong enough to make sure their decision is final. However, the wishes of the patient should also be discussed with the family and the professionals before undertaking it. I think the word "suicide", causes too many issues with this definition, and is what has cause a lot of debate. If an animal is seen in dire pain, and about to die and a vet puts it down rather than leaving it suffer, it is justified; so why should a human have to endure something that not even an animal must endure?
|