Debate

ARGUMENTS
consider that to be a right to life and everything it implies, dignity and freedom of the human person is also essential that there is a right to die with dignity and this results inpositive euthanasia, which is a valid way for a terminally ill patient who no longer wish to suffer the most, is an intimate and personal decision that belongs only take the person in question.
Life isthe essential value and must be protected by the state with all possible means, but we can not ignore the human side of the issue and be honest in stating that death should be less traumatic andpainful as possible and this option provides euthanasia, which is far from being a crime, their motives
mercy are both for the sufferer and for those around him.
In addition to artificially prolong theexistence of a person, at any cost:
Are we really talking about life or just a biological existence?.
We must not forget, as previously pointed out the humanitarian grounds against unnecessarysuffering
terminally ill only prolongs the agony and not his life.
It's bad attempt on the life of a person, but not terminally ill life.

doctors
• Historically, physicians have participated in makingdecisions about end of life and is now common treatments stop or not to establish in certain cases, although this leads to the death. This is what is known as therapeutic effort limitation, limitationof treatment or simply passive euthanasia. This is done with the knowledge and consent of the family and / or guardians of the patient.
legal
The legalization of euthanasia does not mean absoluteobligation. You can not impose the criterion of a conglomerate the legal system of a whole territory, so the law should ensure the mechanisms to regulate access to euthanasia for patients who meetcertain requirements concerned legally specified as well as the legality and transparency of procedures.
• Modern society bases its legal system in protecting human rights. In this sense, each patient...