Endless debate gravitating on the magnitude of this subject of assisted suicide seems to never come to a standstill. Enigmatic questions still remain unanswered, like is it really about the right to die? or healthcare professions are given the right to kill? Globally being a controversial hypothesis where religion, law, ethics, and philosophy try to find a middle ground. On an impartial spectrum on legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia here’s what most countries based their arguments on:
John Keane a chronic motor neuron patient, who was diagnosed with this degenerative disease was denied a chance to decide the fate of his life. The court denied this outrageous expression of suffering after exclaiming that it’s not morally right. Is that good enough? Should this law be changed? As a result of brain damage, Keane is perpetually incapacitated to self-direct any activity. The situation forces his life to be sustained by technology. Normally, it’s unacceptable for a healthcare provider to knowingly fail to save life being conventionally equated as actively ending life. Morally and legally of importance is not any contemplated emotional omission but the presenting illness outcome. Objectively it’s in alignment for a doctor to stop treatment for a severely incompetent patient on a rational medical background justifying the outcome.
It is morally justified for patients to willingly choose for their lives to be terminated for the sole purpose of ending colic, constant, and unbearable suffering. In a modernized society, this should be considered acceptable since many people across the globe already have this chance and privileged that is been asked for legally.
Patients having terminal illnesses with disintegrated and barely functioning body parts, most case scenario being on palliative care deserve a chance to choose when they should die and how they wish to be remembered.
In order to safeguard jurisdictions and maintain the effectiveness of euthanasia and passive assisted suicide, not only does the person requesting consent be competent but also voluntary without any assisted judgment. The circumstance of foreseen outcome well considered over a persistent period of time. On the other token, a sharp contrast emerged and legalization of euthanasia seemed to be unwise and yield an uncontrollable outcome. In countries like the Netherlands which legalized voluntary use of euthanasia, data suggests that more than 500 hundred people are subjected to this practice involuntarily. For this reason for any future proposal to legalize voluntary euthanasia, may be termed insufficient.