Buy essay on Legalization of euthanasia: pro arguments

Currently, supporters of euthanasia are operating in the U.S., Germany, Austria, Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland… Every year hundreds of articles and books are published on this topic that is in high demand, the issue is raised regularly on television. Sympathy of population more and more turns toward this recently put-upon doctrine. Though in different countries euthanasia is considered differently, and nowadays more and more countries are speaking about its legalization.
It should be noted that in countries where euthanasia is permitted by law, this is only about passive euthanasia. It is also important to point out that legislation allowing passive euthanasia, contain three fundamental principles:
1) euthanasia must be voluntary;
2) Only a doctor can provide assistance or perform euthanasia;
3) the patient must be from a medical point of view, unsatisfactory.
In the USA the Code of the American Medical Association says that doctors should never interrupt the life. But despite this, the doctors are not obliged to prolong life, making extraordinary efforts, when the restoration of health is impossible. Thus, it appears that the AMA makes two differences:
– the first – between killing and allowing to die – is that murder is prohibited by law, and permission to die is allowed;
– the second is the difference in exceptional efforts from normal: for example, the use of expensive life support systems for heavy comatose patient is considered to be something exceptional.
There are some arguments that euthanasia is beyond unjust killing.
1. Life is good only when the overall enjoyment take precedence over the suffering, positive emotions – over the negative. According to this argument the state of some people is that they would rather die than continue to live. A striking examples of this situation are those patients who suffer from severe pain or doomed to live in abject dependence on others.
2. Helping someone to improve his position is always morally permissible. If killing improve someone’s situation and the man himself wants to be deprived of life, such situation is not killing, that is a voluntary euthanasia.
3. The maintenance of life on the stage of dying or in a vegetative state, carried out with the advanced technology is too expensive. Namely – the amount spent on the maintenance of life in hopeless situations would be sufficient to treat the tens and hundreds of other people.
These argument are based on the fact that suffering itself cause sympathy: is it possible to deny the act of mercy? In fact, even some devout Catholic believe it is necessary to reduce the suffering of others. But this pity in itself is ambiguous: of course, often the pain is unbearable, but often it is even more unbearable for those who are close to the patient.
That is, if the lethal condition of person is irreversible, it is not necessary to use the painful and expensive methods to maintain this “life” as in fact it is not life anymore. Artificial maintenance of life in the complete absence of brain activity, reflexes, spontaneous respiration and heartbeat would have been abuse of the dying and severe injury to his relatives.

Conclusion
The problem of euthanasia still remains of vital importance. The problem of euthanasia is treated differently; public opinion has the opposite points of view. In the case of full legalization of euthanasia, many will continue to believe that euthanasia (such as killing an innocent) is an absolute evil. This again suggests that about euthanasia should not be judged categorically, not all life situations are measured by our theoretical beliefs, and people who faced the reality of this problem, start treating her differently. Opinion varies significantly in the event of a problem as death and euthanasia.
Though in different countries euthanasia is considered differently, sympathy of population more and more turns toward this recently put-upon doctrine, and nowadays more and more countries are speaking about its legalization.
But the main argument in favor is the fact that the legalization of euthanasia would lead to a clearer and legal regulation of this issue.

References

Baume P, O’ Malley E. (1994). “Euthanasia: Attitudes and Practices Medical Practitioners”. Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 161, Pp. 137-144.
Brody, B.A. ( 1988). Life and Death Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, J. F. ( 1954). Morals and Medicine: The Moral Problems of: The Patient’s Right to Know the Truth, Contraception, Artificial Insemination, Sterilization, Euthanasia. Boston: Beacon.
Jones, D.( 2006). “The Hippocratic Oath II: The declaration of Geneva and other modern adaptations of the classical doctors’ oath”, Catholic Medical Quarterly (February 2006). Retrieved from: http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/ . 5 August 2010
Kathleen F. , Herbert H. ( 2002) The Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care. Retrieved from: http://euthanasia.procon.org. 5 August 2010
Magnusson R. S. (2002). Angels of Death. Exploring the Euthanasia underground. Yale University Press, NewHaven and London, P.46.
Moore, D. (2005). Three in Four Americans Support Euthanasia. The Gallup Organization.