La Eutanasia ( Contra)

Euthanasia
Approximately on the month of March 2010, there were two guys driving a car. It was a normal and beautiful day but in a sudden moment it turned to be a horrible day. They were together in the same car. They were going to their house but another car was in their way, and they crashed. One of them could recover but the other guy was not as lucky as the other one. He was essentiallybrain dead and would never recover (or so the doctors believed). The time passed and the doctors and his mom decided to stop life-support. When they decided to do so, the guy started to cry. Wasn’t he essentially brain dead? Anyways, they disconnected him. He was alive, at least until the doctors and his mom killed him.
One of the most important debates surrounds the issues of euthanasia andassisted suicides. Did you know that euthanasia means “Good Death or Mercy Killing”? But the real questions is, is it really a good death? Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being. Euthanasia is morally wrong whether it is called Mercy Killing, it is murder, and it does not change the fact you take away the only hope of life of the person, in other words, killsomebody. A person who is in dying conditions means he is still alive and is regarded as a living human being in all respects. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respects and reverence by its very nature. One should not and may not close the eyes of a person. It can be just explained with a candle that has just a little bit of fire on it. It may not give you a lotof light, but it still gives light. It will stop shinning until a person blows on it. It is a crime against life. Is it moral to kill someone just to take them out of their pain? If euthanasia is correct, then killing people is ethical and moral. Nobody can decide or has the right to decide how long a human being will live.
The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this countryhas been and continues to be one of the rejections of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the “Due Process Clause."
The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the HippocraticOath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'... or otherwise said as “I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan.” In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can makekilling him right. Approximately on July 2006, a friend of mine was in a coma. He lived 3 years in a coma and finally he recovered. What if his mom wanted to kill him by disconnecting him from life support without knowing that he was going to recover? Now, he is a normal person. He runs, eats, talks, and does everything such as a normal person thanks that his mom didn’t kill him.
However,there are some adults who choose to die legally requesting euthanasia in their living will. Well, euthanasia is also a way of committing suicide. Suicide denotes the killing of one-self. This begs the question, does a good suicide exist? Despite it being painless, arguably it is still murderous. Society has classified suicides as anti-moral making euthanasia contradictive. There is no kind of goodsuicide.
Also, legalizing euthanasia would lead to involuntary killing. About 60 years ago, Germany made euthanasia legal. At first, it was only permitted to be used for the terminally ill, later, those with psychological afflictions, and eventually the people who could not make decisions on their own. One thousand patients died without their request.
According to a survey conducted in 2002,...