The right to die with dignity
Changes in the world ideologies lead to change in values which affect the morals and ethics of a given society. The changes that cause these can not mostly be predicted, and at the time when these issues begin to rise at a low degree people begin wondering why or how they got there. It was never known that Hitler’s rise in power would lead to the holocaust.It was never believed in 1950 that one day people would have the right to love whoever they wanted even if they were the same sex, yet as of today, marriage with the like gender is now legal nationally . Choices have transformed the society that we live in even though they seemed absurd upon their first mention. The choice people made has impacted history for example people voted for Hitler in Germany which lead to the holocaust. Giving citizens faced with terminal diseases the right to die through the act of euthanasia is an ethical progressive decision that will furthermore improve society. This will be achieved through the decrease patient suffering and the allowance of people to die with respect based upon their own choices and decisions rather than having others decide for them.
The decision to allow citizens access to this life ending measure is influenced broadly by the controversy surrounding it from the perspectives of different individuals and groups. The factor most directly affected by the argument is people’s religious affiliations. All faiths attempt to provide answers for the important idea of death and dying accordingly most religions strongly disapprove of euthanasia and subsequently forbid the practice of it. Religious beliefs pose the strongest declaration on why euthanasia should not be practiced by medical professionals including the fundamental conception that God has forbidden it through ‘thou shalt not kill’, the position that human life is sacred or special, and the sanctity of life. The general moral concerns of the method are in regard to the continuous growth of its popularity could directly lead to a result in abuse including: malpractice by doctors, use of the life-ending steps in cases in which it is not needed, and extensive spread conflict on when it should be considered an option for a person living a life of disease. As an outcome of their pursuit in understanding death, religions are the most well built oppositions against euthanasia alongside the fight to develop moral standards in and throughout the circumstance. Society loves fighting smooth battles because they are other larger factors that involve killing people in much larger rate then the way giving the right to death to those in need of it will ever do. From studies around the world only 1.7% of deaths would involve euthanasia. This without considering the fact that these people are really close to their death and thus all euthanasia does is make it more smooth.
Giving a response to the protestations on euthanasia by religion is the most large, and commanding debate on the authorization of the medical application, quality of life. All mortal beings living in this world today are going to die finally, yet everyone is terror-stricken with the idea because of fear of the unknown and more importantly, the way in which they will die. In reality eighty six percent of the euthanasia cases are used to shorten the painful life of the victim by a week at maximum according to different studies that were done regarding this issue. On the other side the objective that is most frequent in people choosing legal euthanasia is to avoid any form of suffering or pain that will take place in the future because of the terminal disease they were diagnosed with. By allowing the choice to discontinue any heartbreak and discomfort, those going through the austerity are able to live what they have left of their life free and have the ability to take every moment as the precious amount of time that it is. This will correspondingly stimulate those around the individual going through this including family, friends, and even physicians; to respect life more throughout the time in which they are given. Along with the new view of life, loved ones and caretakers will have to encounter a reduced amount of misery from not having to watch the person unhurriedly pass away and live in a state of trauma and pain. Out of the legalization of assisted suicide in the impending century, the standard of living for the person choosing to die and the people around them will be enhanced and all persons will have a considerable recognition with regard to life.
When considering the topic of euthanasia a phrase that is commonly touched upon and can be used indistinguishably to chronicle the topic is the ‘‘right to die with dignity’’. Dignity in this manifestation is referring to the meaning of possessing self-respect and managing oneself in a controlled manner. This phrase is in proposing to exhibit the potential for one living and dying of a terminal disease to have ultimate authority over the way and time in which they end their pain and life. The moral presumption held by many is that a person should have the right to decide to take their own lives in order to end prolonged suffering from a terminal disease diagnosed to them. Moral is constituted by an individual’s beliefs and behaviors in a combination of different situations and often can be swayed by other groups of people that view the world in a thoroughly different perspective. Based on true perception, is there a point where a human can only make a terminating decision on suffer until the end and only delay inevitable or make the last controllable option to leave the world with self-respect from yourself and others around you? A dominant portion of this is also guiding towards ethics. The main question on this issue is, does an individual who has no hope of recuperation have the right to chose when and how to end their life and pain?
The existence of slightly differing perspectives and perceptions on euthanasia are astonishing, many of which give suggestion on why, and how to lay out acceptance of the medical application so that in return it can upgrade society in the upcoming centuries. While it could be necessary for euthanasia and the right to die to get legalized, it is of the uttermost importance that is gently introduced to the public to avoid obstacles including wrongdoing , over usage, and citizens being too frightened to even imagine of resorting to the end of life measure. The most influential collision on the authorization of the right to die is overall universality. Almost every person is scared since they have a limited knowledge on what death is. Almost everyone wants a peaceful death for themselves so the logical action should be giving it to those in need, rather than forcing them to wait?
Euthanasia is not a subject matter to be discussed by the timorous because of the practicality of it. Limitation of life-ending procedures for those in pain through the trauma of a terminal disease are lengthening lives that as a result will not be lived to their maximum potential. As an outcome of this it is only causing negative imagery while in death by many because they are not provided a peaceful demise surrounded by their loved ones. Why should one be denied the right to a peaceful death, since the oppositions don’t want him or to? By enabling people the medical application of euthanasia to end their lives when looking towards death by their terminal diseases, people will not be as horrified by dying and will in turn only appreciate life to the fullest. The real inquiry here is not when a person will be allowed to pass away with dignity, but why they have not formerly been given the right to die. In 2015 it was never expected that a terminally indisposed people would be able to choose to end their lives using the act of euthanasia, but the future cannot be determined at this point of time. Only we as a community can determine what the future should be. We can either go with what the scientific studies are showing or make one’s life be guided by the choice that others made without considering the pain of the he or she is going through.