Generally, Euthanasia was moreover like the practice of killing the patient to remove him from the misery and pain that he was suffering. It was an exercise that many physicians continued from earlier times and still don’t believe to be morally wrong within the society. Many of the Roman and Greek philosophers did not believe in the importance of despondent lives being saved because somehow now or tomorrow they have to die. It is good to spare them from their miserable lives, just like weak children in Sparta got killed because they never survived in such harsh environments. This paper will critically analyze whether Euthanasia should be legalized or not within any society.
Many arguments explain why Euthanasia is considered to be wrong. According to Dowbiggin, there was much-related importance in modern conversation, that in relating Euthanasia, like conversation related to immorality and illegality of Euthanasia (Dowbiggin). In perceptive to ethical conduct for medical terminologies, this procedure was against the ‘Hippocratic Oath’ which contradicts it and bounds all the doctors to save as much as they assist to save anyone’s life. One measure is that if anyone commits such a procedure, especially doctors and nurses, they are not only giving up on the expectations of patients along with their family members but also not fulfilling their duties.
Similarly, there exists a lot of medicines by which nearly all cures for diseases are been reported. As technology advances within society, almost everything is possible to do and there is rarely any hope for the patient. From insight to moral conduct, it is nearly impossible for the patient’s family members to make it legalized by murdering their loved ones and consider 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 measure that it was very difficult to identify its need, no matter what, where, or how advanced the science gets.
Correspondingly, the interrogation about the ethics or immorality of euthanasia was itself insightful, along with a large number of arguments 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 serves as the root word because these insights on particular words make a huge difference. According to May, if there were only a focus on mercy, then the scenario would be different than considered to be killed which was immoral (May). From this point, one would say that there was no moral explanation for such a ferocious act no matter how decent it looks.
Euthanasia or murder, in general, is immoral and violent without being questioned about. Although there was slight difficulty in differentiating the legalization of this act again finding a moral explanation for suicide and killing was not conceivable. There was no way to find out the misery or pain of the patient. No matter how grave the condition of an individual is, strength, moral code, and courage always need to be virtuous. The only difference between murder 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. Still, the circumstance remains that the individual carrying the Euthanasia act was simply ‘killing’ a being. At last, to say that Euthanasia is exactly like suicide or murder might not be willingly demonstrable but saying that euthanasia is a mild form of murder is very precise, it should not be legalized no matter what the circumstances might be.
