Euthanasia

To Die or Not to Die
Technological advances have been made that would have never been imagined not even in wild dreams. From spaceships to microscopes, from cell phones to x-rays, today we live in a world where the opportunities presented for people in this lifetime have shaped our society quite differently than previous ones. One cannot deny that although an immense amount of progress has beenmade, some issues have never been resolved. In the medical field there are an incredible amount of alternative treatments to numerous illnesses which were not available before. Does this make it an obligation to seek the treatment just because it exists? Is it in inhumane to withhold a treatment even if it is justified by choice? Euthanasia has raised a controversy, where ethics, religion andother aspects of society debate the legitimacy of the practice. Jack Kevorkian known as “Dr. Death”, was an american pathologist, euthanasia activist, he was arrested and tried for his direct role in a case of voluntary euthanasia. He wrote in a journal: “I propose that a prisoner condemned to death by due process of law be allowed to submit, by his own free choice, to medical experimentation undercomplete anesthesia as a form of execution in lieu of conventional methods prescribed by law”.
According to the Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, in Greek, euthanasia refers to “good death” and in today’s society it is the term used for “cases of an ill or disabled person being helped to die or deliberately killed by another for the ill or disabled person’s benefit” (710, vol.2).This act specifically involves a practice which is carried out by a healthcare professional and is most commonly mistaken for murder or mercy killing. It may involve form a direct killing to an indirect killing such as preventing future treatment and therefore, causing death. Patients may see this alternative in order to be freed from the excruciating pain of an illness. In some cases in where thepatient is not mentally capable of determining future decisions, the option then relies on a tutor, family member, or doctor (Encyclopedia of Science, 711, vol.2).
Euthanasia did not emerge in this century but the practice is still alive today. Euthanasia’s positive effects have given people the option to do what is best for themselves. Life is composed of not only the physical aspect of a humanbut also of its soul. While preserving the wellbeing of oneself, one must also take into consideration the mental wellbeing. Being under constant pain hinders the mental health of a person. Although it is in human nature to preserve life, living under these conditions only disintegrates the conscious life we have left; our mind. Prescribed medicine consists of human made chemicals, making this anon-natural alternative for dealing with illnesses, therefor it is hypocritical to think that a non-natural remedy suites as a better alternative than euthanasia just because it goes against nature. It is a misconception that euthanasia tampers with the sanctity of life (Encyclopedia of Death 210). Life may still remain sacred in the eyes of the people who choose to practice and by that reasonprecisely is why they choose to terminate it.
Unfortunately, some medical conditions do cause great amounts of suffering and unbearable pain for long periods of time before death. Through euthanasia, the patient makes decisions which he or she considers will be best. If the ill person is not able to make this decision, then a doctor or tutor, considering the best interest of the person, makes thedecision. Depending on the moral values of a person, the religion which he or she practices, and the society which that person has been raised, it might occur to him or her that it is their right to decide what happens to their bodies and what they do with their life. When a person is suffering to such extent, the opinions of others based on their way of thinking, do not have such great...