Euthanasia, the freedom of choice

Euthanasia, the Freedom of Choice
Life is the most beautiful thing on planet earth. That is the only thing that makes us different from the rest of planets we know so far in our universe. Life is a gift that was given to us millions of years ago. It is given to each person to be born, grow, and reproduce; that is the perfect cycle that has been around us. This cycle starts the day we are bornand ends the day we die. However, there are some situations that may break that cycle of life, for example terminal illness. What if I had a disease that stopped me from moving my body and doing what I want, but it does not stop my mind from thinking and taking my own decisions; can I decide if I want to stop my life? Is it correct if I decide to do so? Should everybody respect my decisions? Whatcan I do, in this case, to do what I want? There are some practices that would help me if I had this problem. For instance, one of them is the most discussed topics among medicine, religion, terminally ill people, and those who argue for and against it. Euthanasia is defined by The American Heritage Medical Dictionary as an act of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illnessor an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. It may be a nightmare for some people, but it may also be the only hope for others. In fact, there are many arguments opposing euthanasia, but there are also many more arguments supporting it. Therefore, in order to create our own opinions, we should take a critical look at both sides whenpresenting the real facts and arguments about Human euthanasia and decide whether agree or disagree with it.
The first argument against Euthanasia is that doctors must have a moral responsibility to keep their patients alive. Doctors spend so much of their lives studying as much as possible about people’s well-being and heath that is would be just illogical that one day they just decide to do theopposite thing by helping people to die instead of living. In fact, they are here to save people’s lives not to “murder” them. They are supposed to do all the possible things in order to cure the suffering of their patients no matter how expensive and how time consuming it might be. Consequently, Euthanasia should not even be a possible option for them. However, a lot of money in hospitals is spenton terminals illnesses, including medicines, doctors’ salaries, especial equipment, and so on. Millions of dollars are spent each year on terminal ill people not to cure their suffering but to prolong it. By obeying people’s desire to practice Euthanasia on them, hospitals would free up a huge portion of their medical found to truly help to stop others people’s illnesses. The economically benefitsfrom a medical point of view would be better if Euthanasia is accepted then if it would be rejected.
Another argument against Euthanasia is that it is not a natural death. If a doctor assists a patient by putting a lethal injection or simply by stopping the medical treatment, it would not be considered a natural death, and therefore it would be considered a “murder.” Life is probably themost special gift that we all have, and it deserves exceptional protection from everything that may affect it. All possibilities have to be used to “prolong the life of a terminal patient.” Nevertheless, terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick and dignified death. We should put ourselves in in the same situation; we should get the same amount of suffering andpain that terminally ill people have in order to decide if we should or should not accept their decisions of stopping their lives. If we do not feel their agony, we cannot know if we are prolonging their life, or if we are prolonging their suffering. For that reason, terminally ill peoples should be the ones who decide whether or not Euthanasia is their best option no matter if it is not a...