Euthanasia is a Greek word. It means “good, beautiful death” in Turkish. Euthanasia is the end of the life of an animal or man suffering from unbearable pain. The desire to end your life. Many researchers say euthanasia is unacceptable because euthanasia violates the right to life. Everyone who has the right to personality has the right to life. This assertion raises a fundamental question. Euthanasia should be legal? This causes some bad thoughts. For example, if euthanasia becomes legal, people are not patient, if someone has a disease, he or she thinks that “why do I have this problem?”, “why me?” this situation brings to confusion. If we accept this practice, society is surprised and brings many problems. According to one thought: “Autonomy and suffering are the usual justifications for change.” Euthanasia is the cause of impatience. Many people have diseases. Therefore, it is important to determine whether this practice is legal.
First of all, the rejection of euthanasia. “State cannot allow or tolerate euthanasia because it violates international law’”. About the meaning and purpose of life and values on which life rests there are many understandings but ‘”Suffering is extremely complex, part of our humanity, and not exclusive to people who are dying.’” This sentence shows that euthanasia is not only used for humans. The state should regulate movements against human life. People cannot demand euthanasia. The state should restrict them and protect their right to life.
Next, the second view is we will review the countries that accept this application. From what we see, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Canada accept euthanasia. In China and Switzerland, euthanasia is performed in private clinics. Active euthanasia is also available in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont.
“In Hungary, a passive form of euthanasia is legal, i.e. a dying patient may, under strict procedural circumstances, refuse medical treatment.” That is, while some countries have active and passive applications, in some countries they are used passively. Why did these countries accept euthanasia? What are the reasons? “If death is honourable, it is the highest prize.” This sentence belongs to Heraclitus. In my opinion, this way of thinking was effective in accepting euthanasia.
Finally, the right to life and death is not at the person’s make a saving. They are very tightly attached to the person and the person cannot give up. However, some states ignore it. They claim that people can use this right.
Right to Life
The first argument which can be put forward is that the right to life cannot be transferred, that is, euthanasia cannot be accepted. If euthanasia is legalized, it will violate the rights of vulnerable patients. It is also possible for hospitals to ban euthanasia. Therefore, even if accepted, not all hospitals need to apply this decision.
There are many opinions about the meaning and purpose of life. Euthanasia is an ethical, social, legal, and medical issue that is increasingly emerging worldwide. It is a particularly important religious issue. For example, not suitable in Islam. Voluntary Termination of a person’s life is unacceptable.
–
Acceptance
The problem could also be approached from another angle. Some countries apply euthanasia. Today’s world has not yet adopted euthanasia, but I think, in the future, maybe euthanasia will most common application model in the world. Because, people prefer to die rather than suffer and as before, religious feelings are not intense so, in the future, many countries accept euthanasia. This is a result of the mental world. People think that life is their own and can use it as they wish.
The first argument which can be put forward is that euthanasia can’t be acceptable, but there is a second argument that should not be ignored, namely that in the future may find a wide range of applications.
–
Conclusion
All this tends to demonstrate that if euthanasia becomes legal, life loses meaning. It’s difficult to believe that all people will accept this application. At the end of the analysis, one should, however, point out that people lose the spirit of fighting for survival. We should perhaps go further, and ask whether will euthanasia be necessary? Is it a need for future people? In my view, euthanasia is attacking our right to life. I think people should live, and they can go in time. All these ideas are supported for good reasons so a separate decision can be made for each event.
–
Bibliography
- Amber SHAH, Pakistan journal of medical sciences, “The right to live or die? A perspective on voluntary euthanasia” (2004)
- Gajić, Vladimir, “Euthanasia through history and religion” (2012)
- I. FLEMING, John, “Euthanasia: Human Rights and Inalienability”
- SHAH, Amber, Pakistan journal of medical sciences, “The right to live or die? A perspective on voluntary euthanasia” (2004)
- Levine, D. “Suicide and Euthanasia Paradox: A question of right”
- NOMER, Mert, “Yaşama Hakkına Saygı Nedeniyle Ölümü İstemek”
- TACK, Sylvie “Can hospitals prohibit euthanasia? An analysis from a European human rights perspective”
[zombify_post]
0 Yorum