Right to life vs right to die

Euthanasia refers to the termination of an extremely ill person’s life to get relief from the suffering caused by their illness. It is usually conducted on a person whose condition is incurable, however, there are other options when it can be carried out. In some countries, it is an illegal action. It is debatable when a terminally ill patient desire to end his or her great deal of pain and discomfort life to terminate. Who is the right to deny the desire of a patient who is completely suffering from such discomfort? It is strongly debated, and these questions have caused a huge amount of controversies. Those who agree with this stance argue that it should be the choice of the patient, while the party argues that this decision could be misused and would lead to disturbing situations.

Many objections were raised to this reasoning, and these objections are logical. Some people claim that every disease and pain can be controlled by treatment, so euthanize someone is morally wrong. For instance, miracles are possible, there are many examples that people recovered completely from a terminal illness, euthanasia could be a wrong decision. Peter Singer quoted that “Of all the arguments against voluntary euthanasia, the most influential is the slippery slope: once we allow doctors to kill patients, we will not be able to limit the killing to those who want to die.” Doctors are always trying to cure illness, and reduce the pain of terminal ill patients. It could divert the intention of doctors from treatment to euthanasia, and it may become a practice in hospitals.

Passive euthanasia is one of the ways which is used to end the life of a terminally ill patient. If someone is dying or suffering from horrible pain and ask the doctor to let him or her die, it can be permissible. People who are in favor of euthanasia are arguing that it must be up to the patient who doesn’t want to live anymore with an extremely painful life. For instance, the great scientist Stephen Hawking quoted that “I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their own life, and those that help them should be free from prosecution.” Passive euthanasia for the consequentialist can decrease the amount of pain in the world and there is no other choice that can produce better for them so it is a better consequence for the mand overall than to stay alive. The Kantian ethics states to respect their autonomy and let end their life. The example of passive euthanasia is withdrawing the treatment by switching off a machine that keeps a person alive.

Inactive euthanasia a person is deliberately causing the patient’s terminal. For instance, a patient is given an overdose of medicine. While in passive euthanasia you stop a treatment they need to survive. There is a quote that saving the life of a person who wants to die against his will is similar to kill him. Those who defend euthanasia argue that it can get people out of the misery, so we need to respect what they want to do with their own lives. It is further argued that if the passive euthanasia is permissible so the action should also be permissible. There is another famous quote of Jack Kevorkian that his ultimate goal is to make euthanasia as a positive experience.

The term euthanasia refers to a good death, if a person who lives with greater pain and going to die, so euthanasia is a gift for them. This is an important issue both ethically and legally because all of us know what would happen to us, a terminal illness or an accident might force these issues on us, and we would then engage more deeply. Though it is a very controversial topic and a lot of factors are interacting in each individual’s case.