Euthanasia Should be Legalized

Being terminally ill and wishing to put your self at peace is not suicide. Terminal illness:Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma. In popular use, it indicates a disease that eventually ends the life of the sufferer .http://en.wikipedia.org... Con's point's aren't very clear. He's basically saying that M.D practicing is much more important than not letting a person suffer. Here are some more points as to which it should be legalized. "Doctors are the people responsible for treating a person"s disease. They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person. In particular times, doctors can"t do anything if a patient has a terminal disease but to wait for death to arrive. This moment can be very painful for the patient as well as his family and relatives. Euthanasia must be legalized and practiced in times that the patient requests for it to avoid economic burden. If it is not being practiced, it will result to increased suffering of the patient and violating his rights. " http://www.knowswhy.com... Most of us fear death, but a large part of that fear comes from uncertainty and the worry that it might be preceded by agonizing pain (like a car wreck, say). If we knew exactly when we were going to die"and knew for a fact it would be painless"it"s a fair bet that fear would simply melt away. By allowing people to choose the how and when of their death, we"re guaranteeing they"ll live what remaining life they have to the fullest, free from the pain of anxiety. Don"t believe me? Well, here"s author Terry Pratchett saying pretty much the exact same thing. After being diagnosed with a rare form of Alzheimer"s, the Discworld writer became a campaigner for assisted dying. In his own words: "As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice." The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable." It all comes down to what we believe constitutes "harm." When a patient is in intense pain or suffering severe mental anguish, our society could be doing more harm by keeping them alive than allowing them to die. In extreme cases, such as those of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb above, it could be argued that any physician who didn"t alleviate their suffering when asked was violating the principles of their oath"and allowing both great harm and a great injustice to occur on their watch. At the end of the day, it"s up for us to decide whether we can sit back and watch people suffer, or choose to do something about it. Until we make up our minds, that suffering will continue. No-one should force you to be in pain. They don't know how you feel or how agonizing it is to have a terminal illness. This definitely should be the patients choice, to continuing suffering, or to do as they wish, sleep peacefully. Sources: The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable." The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival." But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable." It all comes down to what we believe constitutes "harm." When a patient is in intense pain or suffering severe mental anguish, our society could be doing more harm by keeping them alive than allowing them to die. In extreme cases, such as those of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb above, it could be argued that any physician who didn"t alleviate their suffering when asked was violating the principles of their oath"and allowing both great harm and a great injustice to occur on their watch. At the end of the day, it"s up for us to decide whether we can sit back and watch people suffer, or choose to do something about it. Until we make up our minds, that suffering will continue. It all comes down to the patient, they have free will, they are able to make their own decisions , either to continuing suffering in agonizing pain, or sleep peacefully. Sources: http://listverse.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.knowswhy.com...