It is therefore much easier to look at the issue of euthanasia from the perspective of someone who wants euthanasia. Even if you agree with the utilitarian argument, then you will have to deal with arguments that suggest euthanasia cannot be properly regulated. Opponents may also argue that the net effect on society as a whole will be a decrease in happiness. The only way to approach this would be to look at countries where euthanasia is legal. However, since no two countries are alike, it seems impossible to free the happiness or unhappiness that comes from lawful assisted suicide from any happiness or unhappiness from other sources. In short, the only human choice is to allow suffering people to choose to end their suffering. In addition, discrepancies between existing laws and how they are applied have created uncertainty. This uncertainty leaves doctors, their patients and loved ones unprotected. If we do not address these issues openly and directly, we will continue to have uncertainty and unregulated practices of euthanasia or assisted suicide, with the fear of prosecution hanging over the heads of all parties involved. Opponents of euthanasia further point out that there is a moral difference between decriminalizing something, often for practical reasons like those mentioned above, and promoting it.
For example, it will be difficult to deal with people who want to introduce euthanasia for selfish reasons or push vulnerable patients to die. “It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients subjected to extreme coercion – such as those suffering from an incurable, painful and debilitating disease – conclude that death is preferable to life. But allowing doctors to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately do more harm than good. Medical assistance in dying is fundamentally incompatible with the physician`s role as a healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious social risks. Engaging doctors in euthanasia would ultimately do more harm than good. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician`s role as a healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would present serious social risks. Euthanasia could easily be extended to incapacitated patients and other vulnerable populations. The involvement of physicians in euthanasia increases the importance of their ethical prohibition. The physician performing euthanasia has sole responsibility for ending the patient`s life. Proponents of euthanasia argue that it is acceptable as a universal principle to give everyone the right to a good death by euthanasia, and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable. If death is not a bad thing, then many objections to euthanasia disappear. We tend to think that death is a bad thing for one or more of these reasons: they can reasonably argue that the purpose of the suicide law is not to permit euthanasia and support this argument by pointing out that the law criminalizes assisting someone to commit suicide.
That is true, but this provision is really there to make it impossible to avoid a murder charge by disguising the crime as assisted suicide. First, we must legislate to decriminalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Some of the reasons that are compelling enough for us to change our laws are: Obviously, this is not the case for a patient who wants to die – and proper regulation will weed out people who don`t really want to die but ask for other reasons. “The legalization of euthanasia would have a variety of profoundly harmful effects. This would reduce the protection afforded to everyone`s life. This would kill people who don`t really volunteer, and any protective measures, although initially observed, would inevitably weaken over time. Secular opponents argue that all the rights we have are limited by our obligations. The decision to die from euthanasia will affect others – our family, friends and health professionals – and we will have to weigh the consequences for them (guilt, grief, anger) against our rights. In addition to showing that a prerequisite is met, universalizability does not advance the case of euthanasia at all. Going back to Ms. Pretty, in light of these arguments, why not also legalize voluntary active euthanasia? If she was permanently and gravely incompetent, we have seen the circumstances in which her doctors are allowed to passively end her life and are allowed to do so actively. Should it not be able to actively invite them to end their lives and advise them on how to proceed? No one questioned their competence or courage.
But their own perception of their best interests and the perception of those who know and love them have been suspended in court. Ultimately, they fear, people are expected to commit euthanasia as soon as they become an unreasonable burden on society. When the circumstances are clinically justified, physicians should be able to discontinue life-sustaining treatments if they intend to hasten death and relieve suffering. Morally, the distinction is irrelevant in this particular context. If the passive interruption of life of severely incapacitated patients is legally and professionally acceptable, involuntary active euthanasia should have the same status. In fact, this has been done to some extent, either by formally expanding the categories of persons authorized for euthanasia or by vaguely applying the criteria by personnel involved in the administration of euthanasia. Belgium, for example, abolished the age limit for euthanasia in 2014; Euthanasia has extended beyond the line originally drawn by Dutch law to patients considered legally and mentally incompetent, and the possibility of extending it to those who are not terminally ill but consider their lives complete. severe psychological pain in an otherwise healthy person was considered sufficient grounds for requesting euthanasia; and researchers have found cases of involuntary euthanasia in the form of ending the lives of disabled infants in the Netherlands.
