Introduction

Euthanasia is the process of terminating a patient’s life especially when they are well-thought-out to be incurably ill to the point where it is impossible to recover (Somerville120). The act of ending the lives of patients in a vegetative state is gaining support from many countries around the world. It is unlike the past when people would only murmur and not openly debate about the contentious topic of Euthanasia (Somerville 120). There is an unending debate on the topic of euthanasia (Somerville 121). Like whether doctors and the patients hold any right to terminate the lives of patients in vegetative state. It sparks sharp debate with so many people opposing the acting as well as others supporting the practice. Although certain countries like the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland have adopted euthanasia, it is vital to reject the whole concept of euthanasia since it is increasingly used for monetary benefits (Somerville 121). Therefore, this paper discusses the explanations why euthanasia should never be legal even though it alleviates the agony and sorrow of the incurable ill patients.

Degrades the sacred value of life

The proponent of euthanasia claims that it is allowed by law and that it is the law that gives patients, patient’s relatives, and the physicians the right to terminate the life of terminally ill patients (Keown 37). Some people also argue that there is no way the governments can legalize abortion and refuse to allow terminally ill patients to terminate their lives. These arguments are narrow-minded because they do not comprehensively analyze the broad topic of euthanasia. For instance, how can you compare abortion and euthanasia? Well, abortion is only procured when the life of another person is at risk (Keown 37). In the event of euthanasia, it is apparent that it does not lead to the saving of another person’s life. Legalizing euthanasia in society will lead to the degradation of the sacred life of patients. There exist different types of euthanasia such as passive and active, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. However, it is essential to know that passive and active are acts of negligence and involuntary serves as an abuse of human rights to life.

Euthanasia is increasingly becoming non-voluntary

The rises of emotional and psychological stress among the patient’s family members, financial burden and the sacrifices of caring for the terminally ill have contributed to the high cases of the practice (Keown 38). The patients no longer inform euthanasia need to eliminate pain, but it is now becoming a popular means of ensuring the financial burden of the patients family members. Some people argue that caring for the terminally sick people in the hospice is expensive and the patient will eventually die (Keown 38). Therefore, instead of wasting a lot of family funds in medical care, it is vital to relieve the patients of their pain while also ensuring the family is financially secure. This is an argument informed by the greed for money, comfort and lack of love (Keown 38). It is not in the best interest of the best as many people would present their argumentation. Many people who euthanasia to claim financial benefits from terminally ill patients.

Euthanasia justify death

Legalization of euthanasia in the society will lead to high cases of suicide. When people are told that it is beneficial to die with dignity than face pain and suffering, it will lead to the justification of death as the only means of solving problems (Keown 38). Many challenges in society cause pain. People also perceive pain differently- some people face emotional pains while others live with significant wounds. The perception and definition of pain are different from many people (Keown 38). It is, therefore, vital to know that legalization euthanasia is a justification of death to all people with depression. It will also potentially lead to an increased number of fatalities since people will start to understand it as the finest way to avoid pain. It is God who gives life and has authority over it. Man is the manager of life, and they do not have the autonomy to terminate it.

Terminally ill patients are irrational and cannot make the right decisions

Chronic diseases such as cancer affect the patient’s cognitive ability to make decisions. Therefore, they cannot make a sound decision regarding their lives. For instance, dementia patients are incapable of making sound decisions about their experiences (de Beaufort & van de Vathorst 1463). The act of allowing terminally ill patients to choose euthanasia lacks moral ground because they make a subjective decision based on their pain and not informed judgment (de Beaufort & van de Vathorst1463). For people who claim euthanasia is essential in alleviating the agony and sorrow of patients that modern technology such as palliative care completely helps patients to let go discomfort. Pain should no longer be the reason to take away the lives of patients (de Beaufort & van de Vathorst 1463). The right administration of palliative is the ability to control the patient’s spiritual, emotional, physical and psychological well-being. It is, therefore, essential to consider scientifically proven ways such as the palliative care as opposed to euthanasia

In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence to show that the whole practice of euthanasia is no longer conducted in the best interest of patients. Some people take advantage of the patient’s medical conditions to benefit financially. However, since it is difficult to scrutinize genuine patients who deserve euthanasia, it is vital not to legalize euthanasia for the best interest of patients. Life is a God-given gift to man that should not be terminated even in extreme pain.

Work cited

de Beaufort, Inez D., and Suzanne van de Vathorst. “Dementia and assisted suicide and euthanasia.” Journal of Neurology 263.7 (2016): 1463-1467.

Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalization. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Somerville, Margaret. Death talk: the case against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, 2014.