Euthanasia should be legal

I am arguing against legalized voluntary euthanasia for the following reasons:Abuse: Though oft supported as a just and superior alternative for patient suffering, this agenda masks the reality of prevalent abuse to the practice of euthanasia. With a system as precarious as this one is, it’s no surprise the facilitation of death is concurrent with medical malpractice and lethargic abuse. For instance, in Belgium, the physician is the prescribed individual to carry out the procedure of euthanasia, for purposes of technicality, but also procedural accuracy and for abiding by the law. A study conducted by Els Inghelbrecht, MA, (among others) conducted a study which found the nurses had actually been the ones carrying out these life-ending procedures. [1] Not only is this an infringement of the law and potentially hazardous, it is indeed indicative of abuse in Belgium. If the policy is abused, what is to prevent abuse from carrying over to other nations? However, incorrect medical workers carrying out the procedure isn’t the only problem with the abuse of euthanasia. Statistical analysis has shown half of euthanasia cases are not reported. [5] This indicates euthanasia procedures are being done in supposed secrecy, without warning or even notifying other physicians to agree the euthanization was necessary. A second opinion is often necessary for accuracy. Without this, it’s a broader opportunity for medical professionals to err. Moreover, another large issue plagues the procedure’s morality. Another article contributed to by Freddy Mortier, PhD, (among others) exemplified “half of cases of assisted death are performed without the patient’s explicit request...” [2] Essentially, euthanizations are being done without permission from the patients. This is clearly immoral and wrong. Murder: As a result of the preceding contention, euthanasia can end up as murder. When fateful procedures such as these are being executed without consent, it is no longer a mutual agreement to end a patient’s life; it is instead taking someone’s life without consent, which is, by definition, murder. [3] Murder is unacceptable. David Lanham of University of Melbourne furthers this argument by quoting, “For present purposes, murder can be defined as the intentional unjustified, inexcused and legally unmitigated killing of another human being. Active euthanasia fits this definition on the basis that it is the, or a cause of, death.” [4] Murder is punishable by law, yet it is contradictory to allow another form of murder to go on simultaneously without punishment of any kind. In actuality, the system of euthanasia is often praised. However, when abuse becomes public, it’s imperative to recognize the system can and does result in murder. Violation of a Doctor’s Duty: The foremost and primary duty of a doctor is to assist and help their patients. In so doing, they are bound by the Hippocratic Oath. By the very expression of the Oath, euthanization is a violation of a doctor’s duty. Newsweek explains the Oath and how it pertains to the procedure of euthanasia. “The Hippocratic Oath proclaims: “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” This is an essential precept for a flourishing civil society. No one, especially a doctor, should be permitted to kill intentionally, or assist in killing intentionally, an innocent neighbor.” [6] Conclusion:The the conclusion is this, euthanasia is a failure as public policy. As such, it should not be legalized. Sources: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.cmaj.ca... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.aic.gov.au... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] http://www.newsweek.com...