The Suffering caused by the Euthanasia

" Her husband, who had fought long and hard in the courts for the even up to have her life-time terminated described her threatening death by starvation and dehydration as "peaceful."

In recent years, the compassion killing movement has gained new momentum by and by being re-termed "the right to die." The lapse in logic associated with trying to lead death a "right" should be obvious. We argon all going to die. We don't exact to make any laws or set up any procedures to make it happen. We don't need anyone's incumbrance to die; we will die eventually, and there is no steering to escape that. Death is not a right; it is a destiny. What euthanasists are terming "the right to die" is actually "the right to kill." They wishing to interfere with the destiny to die and short-circuit the process to make it happen on their own terms.

The twisted logic that underlies mercy killing is extremely dangerous. When people depart from known right and ill-timed and begin to manufacture gray areas in their thinking, anything can happen. pot can become convinced of the most outlandish ideas finished their own imaginations and rationalizations. Situation ethics, where people can justify closely any action based on the situation, has produced some peculiar and terrifying outcomes. Jim Jones is a good example of situatio

the long-suffering must have an incurable ailment

Mercy is subjective situation ethics

Dutch 'mercy killing law' passed. BBC News. 11 April, 2001.

One person killed to free up a infirmary bed

The problem with viewing death as a theme is that it turns you into a mercy killer. The problem with becoming a mercy killer is that mercy is subjective. In Holland, where doctors have the legal right to euthanize patients, there are strict rules and guidelines that must be followed onward a patient can be killed:

One of the critical flaws in euthanasia is that the determination that a particular patient should be euthanized will al federal agencys have elements of subjectivity indispensable in it.

Holland's government report in 1991 stated "? it was sweetened to note that only one patient had non-voluntary euthanasia because there was the need for a bed." To call it "gratifying" that such a killing happened "only" in one case shows how routine killing becomes once it is legalized" (Davis).

We need to ask ourselves, Is there no other way to get one much hospital bed than to take away a patient? Are we appointed to be the arbiters of life and death for other people? If so, what qualifies us to make those decisions? Do we want to find ourselves in a situation where individual else has the right to pull the plug on our lives, whether we want to advance living or not? I say euthanasia should be relegated to the category of "philosophical theory" and removed from significant life. You and I will undoubtedly be safer and sleep more soundly when that happens.

Elderly Dutch "Do Not have-to doe with" patient wants to live and now is afraid to enter hospital

We need to question whether there are other solutions

900 people in Holland euthanized without a specific request to die

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!