Euthanasia: The intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being

for his or her alleged benefit. (If death is not intended, it is not an act of
euthanasia)

Arguments For Euthanasia:

 It provides a way to relieve extreme pain

 It provides a way of relief when a person's quality of life is low. If the quality of life has
become so bad, a person may feel too much physical or emotional pain.
 Frees up medical funds to help other people-Today’s hospitals are overcrowded and have
too many patients. Some argue that they should let those die that do not have a
chance of living on. In that way there could be more room for patients with diseases
that can be cured.
 It is another case of freedom of choice

Arguments Against Euthanasia:

 Euthanasia devalues human life

 Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
 Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing
death
 There is a "slippery slope" effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first
been legalized for only
the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done
non-voluntarily.
 Many religions think that euthanasia is immoral. Some religions regard it as a type of
murder.

"Legalising euthanasia would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish
the protection offered to the lives of all. It would allow the killing of people who do not genuinely
volunteer to be killed, and any safeguards, although initially observed, would inevitably weaken over
time.

There would be other long-term consequences of legalising euthanasia that we cannot yet envisage.
We can be sure that these consequences would be pernicious, however, because they would
emanate from an initiative which, while nobly motivated, is wrong in principle - attempting to deal with
the problems of human beings by killing them."

First, it is immoral because it is a form of homicide. It goes against medical advancements by

destroying life rather than improving it. I believe it is wrong to force doctors to commit murder as a
normal part of their profession. Also, the prognosis made by the doctor could be incorrect. Therefore
causing the patient to choose unnecessary suicide. Euthanasia could become widely misused if it
were legalized. Even healthy people might choose to be killed in this manner rather than use another
form of suicide. Also, families of unhealthy people could be tempted to request euthanasia because of
financial reasons. In conclusion, legal Euthanasia is degrading to modern medicine and human life
itself.
Arguments Against Euthanasia

1. Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill.

" There are two problems here; the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already taken
place to extend euthanasia to those who aren't "terminally ill." There are many definitions for the
word "terminal." Some say terminal illness was "any disease that curtails life even for a day." Others
say "terminal old age." Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will occur in
a "relatively short time." Others state that "terminal" means that death is expected within six
months or less. Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, it is virtually
impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as
terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. [Return to home page]

2. Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment

With health care facilities caused to cut costs, euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost
containment. Thousands of people have no medical insurance and the poor and minorities generally
are not given access to available pain control. With greater and greater emphasis being placed on
managed care, many doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients.
Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors
could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person "chooses" to die
rather than receive long-term care.

Savings to the government may also become a consideration. This could take place if governments
cut back on paying for treatment and care and replace them with the "treatment" of death. Hospital
stays are being shortened while, at the same time, funds have not been made available for home
care for the sick and elderly. Registered nurses are being replaced with less expensive practical
nurses. Patients are forced to endure long waits for many types of needed surgery.

This is another of those arguments that says that euthanasia should not be allowed because it will be
abused. The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end
their lives. It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or coercion
to get people to request euthanasia when they don't really want it.

It would fundamentally undermine the basis of trust between doctors and patients that is at the
heart of effective medicine. Far from being the 'ultimate expression of patient autonomy' legalized
euthanasia becomes the ultimate act of medical paternalism. [Return to home page]

3. Euthanasia will only be voluntary; they say

No system of safeguards could ever be foolproof, so in practice legalizing ‘voluntary euthanasia’
would result in legalizing involuntary euthanasia.

Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent
people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people
will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about "being a
burden," could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted
suicide.

For Example an elderly person in a nursing home, who can barely understand a breakfast menu, is
asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. Is this voluntary or involuntary? Will they be protected
by the law? How? Right now the overall prohibition on killing stands in the way. One signature can
sign away a person's life.

Legalized euthanasia would most likely progress to the stage where people, at a certain point, would
be expected to volunteer to be killed. Think about this: What if your veterinarian said that your ill
dog would be better of "put out of her misery" by being "put to sleep" and you refused to consent.
What would the vet and his assistants think? What would your friends think? Ten years from now, if
a doctor told you your mother's "quality of life" was not worth living for and asked you, as the
closest family member, to approve a "quick, painless ending of her life" and you refused how would
doctors, nurses and others, conditioned to accept euthanasia as normal and right, treat you and
your mother. Or, what if the approval was sought from your mother, who was depressed by her
illness? Would she have the strength to refuse what everyone in the nursing home "expected" from
seriously ill elderly people? [Return to home page]

4. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life.

Legalizing the deliberate killing of humans (other than in legitimate self-defence/war or possibly for
the most heinous of crimes) fundamentally undermines the basis of law and public morality.

People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human life
under some circumstances such as self defense - but they miss the point that when one kills for self
defense they are saving innocent life - either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's
life is being saved - life is only taken.

Devalues some lives

Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, "it's better to be dead than sick or
disabled".
The subtext is that some lives are not worth living. Not only does this put the sick or disabled at risk,
it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are alive.

The disabled person's perspective

Part of the problem is that able-bodied people look at things from their own perspective and see life
with a disability as a disaster, filled with suffering and frustration.

Some societies have regarded people with disabilities as inferior, or as a burden on society. Those in
favour of eugenics go further, and say that society should prevent 'defective' people from having
children. Others go further still and say that those who are a burden on society should be
eliminated.

People with disabilities don't agree.

5. Euthanasia can be an irreversible attempt for attention

Even if someone sincerely wants to be euthanasia this may well be due to depression or to a
misapprehension of their true prognosis. Palliative specialists report that such requests are often
used by patients to assess their worth and value to others. A positive response merely confirms their
worst fears and such a decision, once acted upon, is irreversible.

Some patients who have been totally abandoned by their parents, brothers and sisters and by their
lovers, find themselves in a state of total isolation, cut off from every source of life and affection,
they would see death as the only liberation open to them.

In those circumstances, subtle pressure could bring people to request immediate, rapid, painless
death, when what they want is close and powerful support and love. [Return to home page]

6. Euthanasia may become a way of solving issues such as pensions or refugees

Even without it being explicitly stated, legalizing euthanasia would mean that the state was offering
it as an alternative to people who were seeking benefits for sickness or unemployment or to
pensioners, to refugees and people with disabilities. If it were legalized, why not then insist that such
people have ‘euthanasia counseling’ before they receive care or benefits?

If Euthanasia becomes part of everyday life, it would also undermine funding of medical research
into cures and improved health care etc. and people who wanted to extend there life would have no
options without any new knowledge. [Return to home page]

7. Euthanasia puts pressures on dependent relatives ‘not to be a burden’

It would fundamentally undermine the relationships between elderly or dependent relatives and
their families, with overwhelming pressures being applied on people to ‘take the honorable course’
and ‘not be a burden’.

People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those who love
and care for them. They may actually be a burden, but those who love them may be happy to bear
that burden.

Nonetheless, if euthanasia is available, the sick person may pressure themselves into asking for
euthanasia.

Family or others involved with the sick person may regard them as a burden that they don't wish to
carry, and may put pressure (which may be very subtle) on the sick person to ask for euthanasia.

Increasing numbers of examples of the abuse or neglect of elderly people by their families makes
this an important issue to consider.

Any form of suicide is devastating for the people left behind who love the person who has decided
that his or her life is no longer worth living: it is especially damaging for children. [Return to home
page]

8. Euthanasia will lead to assisted suicide

Legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia will lead to increasing numbers of people being eligible for
assisted suicide, including those who are not terminally ill.
For Example a woman is suffering from depression and asks to be helped to commit suicide. One
doctor sets up a practice to "help" such people. She and anyone who wants to die knows he will
approve any such request. How does the law protect people from him? Does it specify that a doctor
can only approve 50 requests a year? 100? 150? If you don't think there are such doctors, just look
at recent stories of doctors and nurses who are charged with murder for killing dozens or hundreds
of patients. [Return to home page]

9 . Against the will of God

Religious people don't argue that we can't kill ourselves, or get others to do it. They know that we
can do it because God has given us free will. Their argument is that it would be wrong for us to do
so. They believe that every human being is the creation of God, and that this imposes certain limits
on us. Our lives are not only our lives for us to do with as we see fit. To kill oneself, or to get
someone else to do it for us, is to deny God, and to deny God's rights over our lives and his right to
choose the length of our lives and the way our lives end.

Religious people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive value in suffering.
However while the churches acknowledge that some Christians will want to accept some suffering
for this reason, most Christians are not so heroic. So there is nothing wrong in trying to relieve
someone's suffering. In fact, Christians believe that it is a good to do so, as long as one does not
intentionally cause death.

It isn't easy to define suffering - most of us can decide when we are suffering but what is suffering
for one person may not be suffering for another.

It's also impossible to measure suffering in any useful way, and it's particularly hard to come up with
any objective idea of what constitutes unbearable suffering, since each individual will react to the
same physical and mental conditions in a different way.

Some people think that dying is just one of the tests that God sets for human beings, and that the
way we react to it shows the sort of person we are, and how deep our faith and trust in God is.
Others, while acknowledging that a loving God doesn't set his creations such a horrible test, say that
the process of dying is the ultimate opportunity for human beings to develop their souls. When
people are dying they may be able, more than at any time in their life, to concentrate on the
important things in life, and to set aside the present-day 'consumer culture', and their own ego and
desire to control the world.

Curtailing the process of dying would deny them this opportunity.

Some non-religious people also believe that suffering has value. They think it provides an
opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion. Suffering is something, which draws
upon all the resources of a human being and enables them to reach the highest and noblest points
of what they really are. Suffering allows a person to be a good example to others by showing how to
behave when things are bad.

10. Euthanasia will fall down the slippery slope

Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before
involuntary euthanasia would start to happen.

We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel
pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.

This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow something
relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable
becoming accepted.

If we change the law and accept voluntary euthanasia, we will not be able to keep it under control.

Fears about regulation

Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to create a regulatory system for euthanasia
that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia.

It gives doctors too much power

This argument often appears as 'doctors should not be allowed to play God'. Since God arguments
are of no interest to people without faith, it's presented here with the God bit removed.

Doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die:

• Doctors do this all the time

• Any medical action that extends life changes the time when a person dies and we don't worry
about that

• This is a different sort of decision, because it involves shortening life

• Doctors take this sort of decision all the time when they make choices about treatment

• As long as doctors recognize the seriousness of euthanasia and take decisions about it within a
properly regulated structure and with proper safeguards, such decisions should be acceptable

• In most of these cases the decision will not be taken by the doctor, but by the patient. The
doctor will provide information to the patient to help them make their decision

Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions about euthanasia,
any legalization of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated, puts doctors in an unacceptable
position of power.

Doctors have been shown to take these decisions improperly