Opposition to the right to die movement is mostly led by people who believe that euthanasia is ruining the sanctity of life. The sanctity of life often refers to the idea that human life is sacred and should not be tampered with regardless of the person. However, recently the quality of life is being preferred over sanctity, and for good reason. The quality of life refers to the fact that life should be lived to the fullest it can. Medically speaking, the quality of life is a patient’s general well-being.
If a patient has an extremely low quality of life and understands what they are doing, they should be able to choose if they would like to medically end their own life. People also believe that it should not be someone’s choice when they get to die, and that it is a natural process. This is mainly backed by religion, with Christians being the main supporters. Due to the concept of the separation of Church and State, religious beliefs should not impact possible legislation. Also, the legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia is not necessarily needed for patients to end their lives.
If a patient really wants to end their own suffering there are other possible methods of doing so without medical help. Those with a religious background also argue the immorality of ending a human life. However, torturing someone is considered immoral as well. Someone being made to suffer when they are requesting to die under their own terms is torture in itself. Therefore, making someone stay alive and suffer through the end of their illness is also immoral, proving these people to be hypocrites.
It is also argued, that medical teams should do a better job of relieving pain for a patient. On the other hand, these pain killing drugs are often killing a patient faster. Because of the amount of pain many of these patients are in, the doses of painkillers that the doctors need to give them are actually killing them. Overall, many of the arguments against the legalization of assisted suicide/ euthanasia are based on religion, which should not affect lawmaking
An individual should have complete control over their own body. The moral argument for euthanasia is most often the argument that voluntary active euthanasia should be legal. In a case when a patient has no possible road to recovery from their terminal illness, is suffering from their condition, and is still mentally capable of making justified decisions, the request to terminate their life should not be denied. Euthanasia is also a way to remove suffering in both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia.
In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, it would be sparing their suffering in the outcome that they do regain a conscious state, but with a low quality of life. In the case of a family member going through this situation, most people would want to see their relative free of pain, even if it means the end of their life. The cost of healthcare can also greatly impact cases, proving a beneficial reason for the use of euthanasia. Many physicians due to their obligations in the medical field will keep a patient alive as long as possible, causing the cost of being terminally ill to skyrocket.
The legalization of assisted suicide/ euthanasia could prevent the financial problems that come with being terminally ill. Those that are terminally ill more than likely need to take a leave from work severely cutting their income, while having their expenses rise at a rapid rate to due variations of medical treatment. Figure 2 shows a chart of how terminally ill patients effect their family members financial status as well as daily life. Many patients would be able to save their families if given the option to end their suffering legally.
Patients who would like the option of assisted suicide can now travel out of their state or country to another area where the practice is legal, so states and countries should begin to adjust to this as well, and allow the reform. The natural right of liberty also constitutes the right to self-determination. This means that a patient who is terminally ill should have the choice to receive a prescription from their doctor that will ultimately result in death.
In retrospect, there will always be opposition to the right to die movement and those who think assisted suicide/euthanasia should be illegal. The current trend has already showed that over time, more and more places will begin to change their laws, ng assisted suicide/euthanasia. Claims that it is unethical to end someone’s life on their own terms are backed heavily by religious motives, which should not affect lawmaking due to the separation of church and state.
The statistics have shown that giving people the right to die as an option would also help people be more fiscally stable. The ethical arguments about the situation also favor the legalization of assisted suicide/ euthanasia. Court cases have also shown by law that it should become a legal practice. For all of these reasons, adults above the age of 21 who are terminally ill and suffering should have the right to die, with the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
