Euthansia Should Be Legalised

1. Euthanasia is, in many respects, making society appreciate life more. If sentient begs are so good and important, then it is in our best interest to ensure that these sentient lives remain in good health and well-off. If they are not either of these things then why lawfully force these lives to continue in misery? Society would come to appreciate the will of the lives in question, should Euthanasia become a legal decision. 2. As I mentioned above, these lives in addition to all lives in peril, remain worth something, if not worth more than the lives of others. This is because when they are brought into question, it becomes of dire importance to allow the person receiving treatment to make decisions about their own life, and for those around them to step back and give the respect for that life that is due. 3. As mentioned in the original debate post, Euthanasia would be done solely in cases where the person to die would be the one to decide. OP: "This differs from Mercy Killing, which is done at times without the consent of the person who is to die. I"m arguing from the standpoint of Euthanasia, in which the patient/person who is going to die is aware of and consents to their treatment." 4. In the case of it not being in that persons best interests, why choose this option? I'm assuming by "not be in the person's best interests" that you mean there may be other alternatives? As mentioned in the first post, " It would not be a requirement in all cases of extreme suffering". There are, in some cases, alternative treatments that could save the persons life, therefore eliminating the option of Euthanasia. 5. These rights, namely, those of the physician giving treatment, the family, and the patient are all affected, however, they are not affected in any way that would justify removing the option of Euthanasia. The physician has all ability to deny giving treatment themselves, and to instead refer the patient to another physician who would be willing to perform such a treatment. There are forms which exist to allow physicians the right to refuse to treat a patient for personal reasons besides those written in the law. 6. Drugs and murder are very separate from Euthanasia. Euthanasia is not murder, defined as the "unlawful premeditated killing of another human being." Clearly, Euthanasia differs from this, both in that the person who will die is both aware of it and, more importantly, consenting. Additionally, this form of death would be entirely lawful in the legal scenario. 7. This is not always true. Terminal illnesses are defined as, "any illness which ends in death. There is no possible chance of recovery." (http://www.dwp.gov.uk...) AS the patient may not always recover, and at times, cannot nor will recover, then it is entirely justifiable to allow them to end their suffering. Certain terminal illnesses, (frequently cancers), may take months to successfully kill a patient, while being untreatable the whole time. This is a prime example of when Euthanasia should be acceptable. The patient will not recover, will continue to suffer until their eventual death, and should, out of respect for their lives and suffering, be allowed to die by their consent. 8. As stated earlier in the first post, "nor would it be acceptable to allow someone who is mentally unable to decide what treatment is beneficial to them to make the decision to end their own suffering.". If someone is in a state of mental instability of any kind, then they should not be allowed to decide their treatment. In such a case, it would be entirely unethical to allow them to decide. If someone was mentally stable, yet in poor health, then it is again unethical to bar them from making a decision about their own life.