Euthanasia Essay - Mercy Killing Not Necessary :: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia Essay - Mercy Killing Not Necessary "Mercy Killing" as Euthanasia is also known, has been outlawed within the United States. The definition of mercy killing is where someone is terminally ill with a disease, and an accomplice helps to end the misery of that victim's life. In my opinion, this decision should be a live and let live decision. If and only if the victim agrees ahead of time before the pain starts to end it, then they should live their life the way they want to; if that includes ending it the way they want to, so be it. Atop this highly controversial topic are many illnesses which have led to the popularity of Euthanasia. Among those are Cancer, Aids, and Alzheimer's. There is a very slim need for the use of Euthanasia today in my opinion. Supporters to full-fledged euthanasia often point out that they are carrying out the last wishes of the damned. One doctor has said that "Our ability to end pain is more powerful than at any time in the history of human experience" (Hanson). The key word of Euthanasia is "intentional," if death is not intended it is not an act of Euthanasia. The debate rages today about this very controversial idea. Doctors' code of ethics will not allow this practice in general, yet it still remains such a hot topic which no doctor is able to set this conflict aside. By withdrawing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, or withdrawing treatment that has shown to be ineffective, too burdensome, or is unwanted, and giving the high doses of pain killers, that may endanger life when they have shown to be necessary are all part of good medical practice, but only when they are properly carried out. The concept of human rights were derived from considerations of the nature of mankind, originated when a political context. "Natural Rights," as they are called, were developed as a proclamation of liberty to be used to guarantee freedom from attack on one's life, dignity, or property. There were considered to apply equally to each individual, or to equivalent groups, there were unconditional and imposed on others a duty to respect them. These "natural rights" were also joined by welfare rights, even though grounded in nature and reason, these are not universally applicable and many would be thought absurd or unattainable in many cul tures.