Generally, Euthanasia was moreover like a practice of killing patient in order to remove him from his misery and pain that he was suffering. It was an exercise that was continued from earlier times by many physicians and still doesn’t believe it to be morally wrong within the society. Many of the Roman and Greek philosophers did not believe in the importance of despondent lives to be saved because somehow now or tomorrow they have to die. It is good to spare them from their miserable lives, just like weak children’s in Sparta got killed, because they never survived within such harsh environments. This paper will critically analyze either Euthanasia should be legalized or not within any society.
There are many arguments that explains why Euthanasia was considered to be wrong. According to Dowbiggin, there was much relate importance in modern conversation, that in relate Euthanasia, like conversation related to immorality and illegality of Euthanasia (Dowbiggin). In perceptive to ethical conduct for medical terminologies, this procedure was against ‘Hippocratic Oath’ which not only contradicts with it but also bounds all the doctors to save as much as they assist to save anyone’s life. One measure that if anyone commit such procedure, especially doctors and nurses, they are not only giving up on expectations of patient along with its family members but also not fulfilling their duties as well.
Similarly, there exists a lot of medicines by which nearly all cures of diseases are been reported. As the technology advances within the society, almost everything was possible to be done and it was very rare that there was no hope for the patient. Form insight to morally conduct, it nearly impossible for the patient’s family members to make it legalized by murdering their loved ones and considered it as one of the law. In reaction to this, the supporters of pro-Euthanasia contend that it was not incredible to decide the necessity to do further discerning like what was needed to be done when the time of that particular comes up. From this, one measures that it was very difficult to identify its need, no matter what, where or how advanced the science gets.
Correspondingly, the interrogation about ethics or immorality of euthanasia was itself insightful, along with a large number of argumentation from both sides’ supporters. The disagreement that euthanasia is immoral because in any case there should be no exception, and life should be preserved in all situations was denied by pro-Euthanasia proponents. These enthusiasts believe that in sympathy murder, the word ‘mercy’ itself serve as root word because these insights on particular words makes themselves a huge difference. According to May, if there was only focus on mercy, then the scenario would be different than considered to be killed which was immoral (May). From this particular point, one would say that there was no moral explanation for such a ferocious act no matter how decent it appears to look.
Euthanasia or murdering, in general, are immoral and violent without being questioned about. Although there was slight difficult to differentiate the legalization of this act but again finding the moral explanation for suicide and killing was not conceivable. There was no way to find out misery or pain of the patient. No matter how grave the condition of an individual is, strength, moral code and courage always needed to be virtue upon. The only difference between murdering and Euthanasia was motives, but the act would remain the same. Putting this rehearsal under Perversity was tougher as the individual in pain cannot make a positive or right choice but the circumstance remains that the individual carrying the Euthanasia’s act was simply ‘killing’ being. At last, to say that Euthanasia was exactly like suicide or murder might not be willingly demonstrable but saying that euthanasia was a mild form of murder is very precise, which should not be legalized no matter what the circumstances might be.