The Pros and Cons of the Legalization of Euthanasia

Aspect 1: Suffering 

Pro: Karlsson, M., Milberg, A., & Strang, P. (2012). Suffering and euthanasia: a qualitative study of dying cancer patients’ perspectives.  Supportive Care in Cancer ,  20 (5), 1065-1071. 

According to Karlsson, Milberg, and Strang (2012), euthanasia helps patients living under painful circumstances, terminal illnesses, and irreversible comma. Under certain situations, euthanasia is necessary because it will bring an end of suffering to the victim. Since it is painless, the sufferer does not have to agonize any more. In certain situations, the pain is exceptionally high in which the patient wishes to die rather than experiencing any more pain. Therefore, euthanasia is necessary to be applied to end suffering on both patients and the concerned families. 

Con: Le Glaz, A., Berrouiguet, S., Kim-Dufor, D. H., Walter, M., & Lemey, C. (2019). Euthanasia for mental suffering reduces stigmatization but may lead to an extension of this practice without safeguards.  The American Journal of Bioethics ,  19 (10), 57-59. 

Le Glaz et al. (2019) elucidates that euthanasia does not relieve suffering to society because it exerts fear to other patients with the same diseases and starts deeming that their lives are worthless. It also leaves families with more suffering for losing their members. Instead of doctors taking euthanasia as the only option, they should be researching more on how to relieve the pain without killing the patient. 

Euthanasia should be legalized as it ends suffering in the people who are under extreme pain and who cannot be treated. Instead of passing through all that pain and have a painful death, it is necessary to apply euthanasia for the patients who are willing to have it done. 

Aspect 2. Economic 

Pro: Nikookar, H. R., & Sooteh, S. H. J. (2014). Euthanasia: an Islamic ethical perspective.  European Scientific Journal . 

Nikookar and Sooteh (2014), show that euthanasia is relevant in reliving the families from expending any more capital on patients who will never recover. For instance, in a situation where a patient is in an irreversible coma, euthanasia is relevant to prevent money wastage for something which will never work. Being put in a life-support machine requires a lot of capital, and thus, if the patient cannot be saved, then it is necessary to apply this system. 

Con: Avery, A. L. E. X. (2013). Convenience euthanasia’. But at what cost to all involved.  Vet Times , 1-10. 

According to Avery (2013), euthanasia destroys the economy of a nation because when the patient dies cannot contribute any more to society. Some patients with deadly diseases are still working and contributing to the community yet on considering euthanasia; their contribution to the nation vanishes. Patients should be given their right to live to continue subsidizing the country until their last minute. 

Euthanasia should be legalized as it will help the families on saving their money on patients who cannot be recovered. It is clear that if a person is in a harrowing condition which cannot be recuperated, this system will help in saving the funds which can be used on other beneficial things. 

Aspect 3. Ethics 

Pro: Dintcho, A. D. (2020). Should Active Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible?.  Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal ,  5 (1), 1. 

According to Dintcho (2020) , it is ethical to have a death with dignity. A patient who is bedridden with a lot of suffering and ceaseless torment is usually remembered in such a way after death. Thus, to avoid degrading the value of a person, if the patient is going under painful circumstances with cannot be alleviated, it is then necessary to apply euthanasia and have decent death. 

Con: Boudreau, J. D., & Somerville, M. A. (2014). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives.  Medicolegal and Bioethics ,  4 , 1. 

Boudreau and Somerville (2014) argue that the use of euthanasia is against the ethical values of the human being. As per different religions, euthanasia is perceived as a killing, which is a sin as per religious perspectives. It is wrong to deny someone the right to life or support individuals in killing themselves. This system degrades human lives. Euthanasia is against the oath which physicians state, saying they will never give or make suggestions of deadly drugs to patients. 

Therefore, it is euthanasia should be legalized to grant those people who are suffering their wish to have a death with dignity. Since their conditions cannot be alleviated, and as long as it is their choice, then euthanasia can be applied. 

References 

Avery, A. L. E. X. (2013). Convenience euthanasia’. But at what cost to all involved.  Vet Times , 1-10. https://www.vettimes.co.uk/app/uploads/wp-post-to-pdf-enhanced-cache/1/convenience-euthanasia-but-at-what-cost-to-all-involved.pdf 

Boudreau, J. D., & Somerville, M. A. (2014). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives.  Medicolegal and Bioethics ,  4 , 1. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/34258708/MB-59303.pdf?1405971357=&response-content- ngHOOmHvZ96VZv8qfW2246jpNCUA5Ou8E4wDqsPFiKG3KLaWxx5s7XxjtRIRn1MDhb-mJ7l4nCam3-KXgFP~0w__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA 

Dutch, A. D. (2020). Should Active Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible?.  Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal ,  5 (1), 1. https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/sounddecisions/vol5/iss1/1/ 

Karlsson, M., Milberg, A., & Strang, P. (2012). Suffering and euthanasia: a qualitative study of dying cancer patients’ perspectives.  Supportive Care in Cancer ,  20 (5), 1065-1071. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00520-011-1186-9 

Le Glaz, A., Berrouiguet, S., Kim-Dufor, D. H., Walter, M., & Lemey, C. (2019). Euthanasia for mental suffering reduces stigmatization but may lead to an extension of this practice without safeguards.  The American Journal of Bioethics ,  19 (10), 57-59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2019.1654019 

Nikookar, H. R., & Sooteh, S. H. J. (2014). Euthanasia: an Islamic ethical perspective.  European Scientific Journal . https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5533648/MIFS2014.Vol.2.pdf#page=189