The Merits of Allowing Euthanasia in America

Euthanasia, although it used to simply mean “good death” has come to be defined as a mercy killing, or the act of inducing death to end inescapable suffering and the prolongation of the period before the inevitable death. There are different laws regarding this practice in different countries, and in the recent past there has been an increasing amount of talk about whether or not the practice should be allowed in the United States. Entirely valid arguments have been made from both sides of the fence on this issue, but arguments for the practice have been coming up with increasing and resounding force. Euthanasia can be seen as a more peaceful way to end the process of dying that has the potential to avoid some of the suffering often associated with a more prolonged experience; there are many merits to the practice that must be considered by those who are against allowing it in the United States.

Three different types of Euthanasia have been identified in today’s society. They are passive euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when the physician involved provides the patient with the thing that he or she needs to commit suicide, for example, medication, with the full knowledge that the patient intends to do so. Active euthanasia occurs when a person intentionally causes the patient’s death at the request of a patient who is fully competent and has given their full, informed consent. Passive euthanasia occurs when the physician or caretaker does not administer any lifesaving treatments, and the patient is simply allowed to die naturally when their time would naturally come without the aid of treatment. For many people, there seems to be a real moral difference between letting someone die and not making an attempt to save their life, and actively ending someone’s life or quickening the ending of that life. Which one is seen as less moral often depends on the person.

While those who are against Euthanasia say that laws against the practice are to protect the patients from doctors or caretakers who may wish harm on them for whatever reasons they may have, and while it is very true that these laws do protect people from that to an extent, these laws also force people to suffer unwillingly at the end of their lives. These laws mandate that a person live as long as medicine will permit them to live, instead of being able to die when and how they choose, with their dignity and a decent quality of life still intact. The laws unwittingly force people to live out the end of their days in inescapable and unimaginable mental and physical pain, as well as force the families of the patients involved to watch their loved ones die a slow death, filled with needless suffering. Those that are for euthanasia seem to support the idea that this should not be the case, that a person should have the right to choose not to suffer, and not to allow the suffering of their family.

Those against euthanasia also state that the right to be assisted in bringing about your own death is not one that is protected in this country, and that it should stay that way, but others seem to interpret our legal rights in another way. They believe that if the courts have interpreted the law in such a way that people have the right to refuse medical treatment or the right to an abortion then the right to be aided in the ending of their life as they see fit when the time comes should also be a legal right protected by the courts of the United States.

The main worry of many of those who are against legalizing euthanasia is that it is a way of legalizing murder, and that the ability will lead to new ways for people with malicious intent to get away with the killing of those who do not truly want to die, or those who are not competent enough to make that kind of decision. While it is entirely true that we as a country need to find a way to safeguard our citizens against this danger, we cannot let it stand in the way of allowing those who do have the right and capacity to make the decision to end their suffering on their own terms, to make that decision. We cannot let the pretense of protecting people from an unlikely harm prevent us from allowing the many people who are faced with prolonged suffering at the ends of their lives due to serious illness or the extreme effects of old age to choose when and how their lives are going to end. It is important for those in their final stages of life to be afforded the dignity of that decision, if it is their choice. The government has no right to take away that final choice from a person in a time in their lives when they have no choices in anything else, when it is no longer a matter of live or die, but how death come, and when.

These are only a few examples of the reasons why citizens of the United States should be given the legal right to be given help in dying. The many arguments that people hold against this decision are easily refuted by the rights that people should have when faced with inescapable suffering leading to inevitable death. These rights should include not only the ability to refuse treatment, but also the right of a fully informed, competent person to be aided in the hastening of death or in the ending of their life, if that is the path that they choose. It is important that the government does not continue to mandate the suffering of terminally ill patients and their families at a time when so many other choices are already taken from them by the nature of disease and dying itself.