LAW RELATING TO EUTHANASIA

The Law Relating To Euthanasia Provides a Satisfactory Balance between Competing Viewpoints

The Law Relating to Euthanasia Provides a Satisfactory Balance between Competing Viewpoints

Introduction

The study is concerned about the law relating to euthanasia which is considered as one of the vital problematic concerns in the medical field due to the conflicting agreements concerning to the ethical, moral and religious views. At the present time, the lives of various patients can be kept with the modern developments in technology and process of treatments. But it is still not capable to find the treatment of all the diseases or the illnesses. Due to which the patients have to go through the exceptionally painful treatments only to have time. These surviving patients struggle with the psychological and physical pain. Moreover, due to treatments which are highly costly only few of the patients are capable to have total control of their lives as it is very difficult for them to solve their financial instability. So these patients have a limited choice of leading a painful life. People should have the right to end their lives through the easy way to stop misery of their endless pain but there should be certain restrictions on these acts. Furthermore society should also have respect and compassion to the patient's decision about the euthanasia whose life has become unbearable.

Research has shown that breathlessness and a feeling of inadequate oxygenation is more scary and obnoxious than any other sensation. It has been stated that the law relating to euthanasia provides a satisfactory balance between competing viewpoints. This paper will seek to critically analyse this statement in relation to the law in England and Wales.

Discussion

Euthanasia is considered to be a compassionate means of bringing an end to a patient's sufferings and pain. Significant controversy surrounds the question of whether or not the fear of terminal pain and suffering underlie the entire demand for euthanasia and whether modem medicine is doing enough to eliminate such pain and suffering. This argument is straightforward, but problematic. The major impetus, at least in countries, for the Legalization of euthanasia is focused on the right to self-determination. It does not follow, indeed it seems contradictory, to place the power of life and death in the hands of others, even if they act out of mercy and compassion. Acting “mercifully”—without clear and certain direction from an incompetent patient, as some who advocate euthanasia would do—violates the ideal of self-determination. Critics of the “merciful ending” interpretation claim that a society cannot weigh in at the end of someone's life with a kinder, gentler way out when it has “starved the aged and dying of compassion for many of their declining years.”” A country must earn the moral option to kill for mercy by supporting the lives of its citizens with compassion and mercy.

William F. May is a severe critic of the argument for euthanasia from compassion. According to him, there is a possibility for active euthanasia to become final solution for handling the problem of ...