Euthanasia is a form of assisted suicide with the objective of relieving pain and alleviating suffering incurred by the patient ( Chambaere et al., 2015) . Like any other aspect that deals with life and death, it is very controversial. The practice has attracted several debates particularly on it being seen as an infringement of an individual’s fundamental right to live. As a law, the voluntary practice of the technique has been approved in some countries like Canada ( Mishara & Weisstub, 2015) . In Australia, however, the debate has only intensified without reaching any conclusion so far. In the country, there is a big division on whether to legalize the practice or not. Knowing that the practice's main aim is to reduce suffering, it is seemingly appropriate to say that ever individual has a right to die and easy death, if and only if, the person is terminally ill. Therefore, the practice should be legalized in Australia due to the reasons listed below.
First, the practice helps in alleviating depression, pain, and suffering of the patient ( Boudreau & Somerville, 2014) . Through advancement in technology, various drugs and techniques have been developed to address the modern day diseases. However, some of these diseases are incurable, especially when they have fully developed in a patient. Most of these diseases cause a lot of pain and suffering to the patient. The only way such pain and suffering can be ended is when the patient dies. In most of these cases, the patients always prefer to die as opposed to continued discomfort ( Emanuel et al., 2015) . Therefore, the practice should be legalized to give the patients the option to make a personal decision and put an end to his/her suffering.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, the practice greatly reduces emotional, physical, inconveniences and financial burdens imposed on the families of the patients ( Parmar, Rathod & Parikh, 2016) . There are ways of treating certain diseases. However, some of these techniques are expensive. In Australia, for instance, most people do not have health cover. As such, they may be faced with a lot of financial burdens when sick. In such cases, the burden is passed to the family members who may also be incapable of addressing it. Besides financial burden, the family members also undergo emotional stress when they see one of them suffering. There are cases where individuals have even become sick or suffered a stroke as a result of the emotional stress of seeing another person suffering ( Parmar, Rathod & Parikh, 2016) . In most cases, patients have opted to die to prevent their family members from undergoing the same suffering they are experiencing. In such cases, the patients have a right to protect their family members. As such, there is a need for legalizing euthanasia.
Lastly, the practice gives an individual liberty. Every person has a right to own his life. Just like people do whatever they wish with their lives, they should be allowed to discontinue their life when they wish, particularly when their reason is rational. In most cases, most people who want to end their lives are faced with tough situations or experiences, which they wish to opt out of. In such cases, when people decide to end their lives it is no one’s business to say otherwise. It is evident that an individual’s decision to end his/her life reflects on the person’s preference for death rather than continued suffering and discomfort. Such a person cannot continue to live a happy life. Therefore, his/her opinion should be respected. The only way to make this happen is by legalizing euthanasia.
Just like any other debated topic, there are always opposing views. One of the opposing viewpoints regards religion. Most believers of these religions put emphasis on killing; they argue that we are just stewards of our lives and only God has right over it ( Boudreau & Somerville, 2014) . The opponents believe that suffering is a part of life and that we have the responsibility to understand and grow from it ( Sulmasy et al., 2016) . However, they fail to explain why religion has not prevented the use of analgesics during surgery and childbirth ( Boudreau & Somerville, 2014) . As such, it is correct to say that these opponents are not honest in their arguments. Another opposing viewpoint is that what is incurable today may be curable tomorrow. What informs this argument is the fact that most of the previously deadly diseases, which had no cure, can be cured today. However, it is also true that cure for all diseases that were incurable in the past have cures today. As such an argument cannot be used to make the suffering patients feel comfortable. Another concern raised by the opponent regards the abuse of the practice. However, this can be addressed by putting in place comprehensive and tight procedures to ensure that it is not abused.
In summary, euthanasia practice gives an individual liberty and alleviates the pain and suffering of the patient as well as the families of the patient ( Boudreau & Somerville, 2014) . These circumstances should be considered so as to legalizing euthanasia. The practice should not raise controversy when performed solely within the contexts outlined above. The fact that the is a lot of debate surrounding the issue should be used as an opportunity to bring these opposing arguments to the table and develop ways of addressing each argument.
References
Boudreau, J. D., & Somerville, M. (2014). euthanasia and assisted suicide: a physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives. Medicolegal and Bioethics , 4 (1), 1-11. https://www.fesemi.org/sites/default/files/documentos/bibliografia/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide-ml-and-bioethics-2014.pdf
Chambaere, K., Vander Stichele, R., Mortier, F., Cohen, J., & Deliens, L. (2015). Recent trends in euthanasia and other end-of-life practices in Belgium. New England Journal of Medicine , 372 (12), 1179-1181. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1414527
Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama , 316 (1), 79-90. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2532018
Mishara, B. L., & Weisstub, D. N. (2015). Legalization of euthanasia in Quebec, Canada as “medical aid in dying”: A case study in social marketing, changing mores and legal maneuvering. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health , 1 (4), 450-455. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552515001656
Parmar, P., Rathod, S., & Parikh, A. (2016). Perceptions of patients’ towards euthanasia–A medico-legal perspective. Age (Years) , 20 (12), 21-30. http://iaimjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/iaim_2016_0305_04.pdf
Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., Mitchell, L. A., & Ely, E. W. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Linacre Quarterly , 83 (3), 246-257. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00243639.2016.1201375
