Usually, ethics and morality-related topics are held responsible for yielding most of the controversial issues among societies.
Those issues tend to vary from one place to another. One of the core concerns the Western world has been elaborately debating about is euthanasia, or, sometimes, preferably called physician-assisted suicide. Whilst involuntary euthanasia is found to be consensually morally impermissible, people still argue the acceptance and the moral aspect of voluntary euthanasia.Furthermore, passive form of euthanasia doesn't seem to fit our definition given at the onset since it results sometimes in a rather painful death and prolonged suffering.
Therefore, active euthanasia seems to draw the most attention among activists and lawmakers. Is active euthanasia ethically acceptable? Should it be legalized? From my perspective, it's my belief that euthanasia should be legalised in this country. What if an individual would want to carry on living such a hard life to the extent were they cannot move or talk and have to have the burden of having someone spend their entire life attending to their needs.It's very understandable that they would not want this, as you or me may agree.
But then if they did decide they wanted to die, it is not even legal to expect euthanasia in Britain. Is it really fair to send a highly incapacitated human being to a far away country just to end their suffering? They can't work for a living so they are possibly not going to have the money to travel far and what if they wanted to die with their family in the country they previously lived their life in?Maybe they could look at countries where euthanasia is legal and see that it has been successful so far, but to me it just seems like it is depriving the individual's basic rights of life. On the other hand many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen. It is concluded that it is virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia are truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.People are also concerned about vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.
This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted. Those who oppose this argument say that properly drafted legislation can draw a firm barrier across the slippery slope.The law also states that it is illegal for very good reasons - it captures the idea that human life is equally valuable regardless of circumstances. How can you distinguish what they mean by valuable? Do they mean intrinsically valuable? None the less, many people don't even know what it means to be intrinsically valuable.
Some people may find it hard to reason why their life is valuable in the first place. So because of this I don't think that the laws point about life being valuable is valid. There is juxtaposition between a terminally ill persons value of life and a healthy persons value of life, surely?They say regardless of circumstances also, I say that it just like ignoring a person life condition, which I believe in unfair. In the situation of a terminally ill person there is limited choices only.
They can either carry on living in pain, travel to another country meaning high expenses are to be required (many people wouldn't be able to afford), try to commit suicide themselves (which is illegal, and they may be deemed a criminal if it fails) or rely on palliative care. Apart from euthanasia, palliative care seems to be the next logical choice.However, this can also be expensive. They may feel lonely and depressed, as they know it is where they literally go to slowly die.
They can't stay with their family or they may get homesickness In addition they can't always be sure if the treatment will be effective for them, so it could be a waste on money in the long run. In conclusion euthanasia should be legalised in the UK. I argue that it is unethical, immoral and inhumane to put people through pain and suffering to the point where they do not have a life because they are to ill to move and communicate.Unfortunately the issue may take time to overcome, as the Government don't really want to deal with such a controversial subject. If it were to become legalised, then maybe society would really feel that they have an option to fall back on if they were to ever become ill.
It could also make humans feel as if they have increased control over their right to live or die. It may also be good to note that opinion polls show that ordinary Christians do not follow their leaders since 80% of Anglicans and 73% of Roman Catholics lay people would like to see euthanasia legalised.
