The Moral Battle for Euthanasia
... for survival should not only mean to seek to survive, but also to seek to lead healthy, productive lives. It could be seen as relieving a person's suffering and allowing a course of dignity. This thesis is indicated by its beginning sentence: “It is harder morally to justify letting somebody die a slow and ugly death, dehumanized, than it is to justify helping him to escape from such misery.” Next, the author tried to respectively define mercy killing and prolonging life as positive Euthanasia and negative one, compare these two treatments and once again prove it that “being human is more valuable than being alive”. Followed, four forms of Euthanasia are developed. After analyzing the difference among the four types, the author pointed out that “the human well being is the highest good”, which justify the adoption of Euthanasia. Critical analysis As a proponent of euthanasia, the author argued that "mercy-killing" is necessary because patients, particularly those with terminal illness, experience uncontrollable pain. The only way to alleviate the pain is to eliminate the patient. But is there a better way? Surely, there is. A better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical Association, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients." The problem is that uninformed medical personnel using outdated or inadequate methods often fail in practice to bring patients relief from pain. However, today’s advanced techniques make it possible. Moreover, as we know, in western countries, for many, lives are seen as gifts from God, and ones that are not taken lightly. The act of euthanasia is, at worst, "seen to go against instinct and to cheapen the grace of God. The legalization of Euthanasia is sure to arouse a moral battle in society. Another type of argument against euthanasia is that it is not prudent to advocate it. Like all medical procedures, euthanasia can fail, or bring additional suffering. Some claim that if euthanasia were allowed, doctors might press people into euthanasia to reduce medical costs, or because their family can’t afford the paying. Many doctors argue against euthanasia, as providing death is antithetical to their primary function and training. ...