Negative case against euthanasia
Negative case against euthanasia
That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse. We could never truly control it. Financial considerations, added to the concern about "being a burden," could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide. Some people argue that refusing patients drugs because they are too expensive is a form of euthanasia, and that while this produces public anger at present, legal euthanasia provides a less obvious solution to drug costs. Our inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed care, many doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients. They are missing the main point - it is not an issue of force - it is an issue of the way laws against an action can be broadened and expanded once something is declared legal. Assisted suicide should not be necessary. The knowledge of natural law is discernible by reason and so it is not fundamentally theistic. The subtext is that some lives are not worth living. Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person "chooses" to die rather than receive long-term care.
Proponents say: The law is able to deal with the possibility of self-defence or suicide being used as disguises for murder. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to life for every individual.
We must never let the depressed, the confused, those in terrible pain, the aged and the vulnerable feel that they should pursue the path of assisted suicide so as not to be a burden on others. Our inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better.
The pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide lobby will often present the view that helping someone else to end their life is the most loving and compassionate thing to do.
Euthanasia debate questions
In Belgium, doctors are entitled to psychotherapy after euthanizing a patient. Some people argue that refusing patients drugs because they are too expensive is a form of euthanasia, and that while this produces public anger at present, legal euthanasia provides a less obvious solution to drug costs. This could take place if governments cut back on paying for treatment and care and replace them with the "treatment" of death. In , 50 per cent of patients requesting suicide were assisted to die by a doctor who had been their physician for eight weeks or less. The patient is depressed and believes that his situation is worse than it really is. There are many families who are required, by law, to keep a family member who desires physician assisted suicide alive through costly treatment that drains their funds. Reports from the Netherlands, where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal, reveal that doctors do not always report it. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse. Once one signature can sign away a person's life, what can be as strong a protection as the current absolute prohibition on direct killing? So making euthanasia easier could exacerbate the slippery slope, pushing people towards euthanasia who may not otherwise choose it. It is impossible to establish guidelines strict enough to limit euthanasia to persons for whom it is provided.
Example 2: a woman is suffering from depresssion and asks to be helped to commit suicide. Patients who are ill or dependent often feel worthless and a burden to their family and loved ones.
Physician Integrity and Patient Trust Argument When a patient asks a physician to assist in killing him- or herself, not only is there disrespect shown to the physician's integrity, but a contradiction is created.
based on 2 review