Name

Course

Instructor

Date

The term "euthanasia" refers to the practice of aiding the suicide of a terminally sick patient

who has made the conscious decision to end their own life. When discussing the ethics of legalizing

euthanasia, two points tend to spark the most debate. That one's life is a gift from God and, from a

religious standpoint, it's wrong and immoral to waste it is the first. To those who hold this view, the

person requesting euthanasia has the same authority as God in determining the course of his or her

own life.

However, the doctor who assists a patient in dying is seen as committing a morally

reprehensible act of "taking away life," or "killing." So many pastors and other religious leaders

consider euthanasia a sin for both the patient and the doctor. The second problem involves the 'do no

harm' ethic emphasized by the Hippocratic oath. Even so, some medical professionals justify

euthanasia by believing they are assisting their patients and are therefore not breaking their oath.

Proponents of euthanasia, on the other hand, typically argue that it's preferable than suicide since it

permits the patient to avoid a terrible death.

I have chosen the legal and ethical side of autonomy of a patient to die with dignity. The

concept of individual autonomy is also relevant to any discussion about euthanasia. This is considered

"an ethical imperative" since it ensures that the patient has a say in his or her care and can accept or
reject the doctor's recommendations (Hendrick 29). The advocates of euthanasia claim that allowing

terminally ill patients the option to end their own lives is the epitome of patient autonomy and respect

for the patient's ability to pursue goals.

Therefore, a person who is eligible When someone chooses euthanasia, they are able to end

their life the way they want to. The patient's right to decide what's best for them is prioritized in such

autonomy. Legalizing euthanasia, on the other hand, respects the autonomy of the patient, who is the

one whose interests are most vital.

Some people who are against euthanasia worry that if people have too much choice in the

matter, the number of people who choose to end their lives may rise uncontrollably. People may also

argue that the right to life and other constitutional protections would be violated if everyone had the

option to decide for themselves whether or not to continue living. Some may feel that doctors' and

families' right to choose when to intervene in a patient's autonomy is being infringed upon if

euthanasia is made legal. As an example, a person's freedom to decide how to treat a loved one is

violated if he or she cannot fathom a world without that person. Furthermore, too much autonomy

may impede doctors' and researchers' efforts to find a cure for complex disorders, as they would be

unable to do so without test subjects.

To understand contractarianism, one must consider the relationship between an individual and

the larger community. For Hobbes, the inherent right to one's own survival is the most fundamental

human right. When a person signs the so-called social compact, however, that right to self-

preservation is revoked because the government is responsible for everyone's safety (Pesut et al.,

2020). In light of these arguments, it would seem that the social compact should include provisions

for the protection of euthanasia. In the event of intolerable suffering, this would provide everyone the
option to end their own life. According to Hobbes, the only way for citizens' rights to fully materialize

is for them to be written into the social contract. If euthanasia is made legal, it can be used by anyone

who wants it.

On the other hand, individuals who think euthanasia should be illegal could disagree with

enshrining that right in the social contract. If opponents get their way, euthanasia will be illegalized in

the social contract. Since Hobbes holds that everyone has the right to protect their own life, his theory

might be put into practice here. By contrast, euthanasia violates this principle because it discourages

people from trying to keep themselves alive. Since it is everyone's natural right to protect their own

lives, euthanasia goes against the terms of the social compact, and as such, it should be excluded

(Fleming, 1996)Given the findings of the autonomy and social contract analyses of euthanasia, it is

plausible to conclude that assisted suicide should be authorized. However, the criteria for euthanasia

eligibility must be established. First, it's unfair to restrict access to only the elderly, as many young

people also deal with terminal illnesses. To legally achieve euthanasia for such people, it is likely that

parental permission will be required.

Yet, they must also be guaranteed the right to die with honor. Second, changes in one's mental

health status, either permitting or prohibiting euthanasia, may be required. A person should be eligible,

for example, if he or she is fully aware of the choice being made right now but will be unaware of it in

a few weeks. Different schools of thought and methods of analysis don't change the ultimate moral

verdict: euthanasia should be legalized.

The primary argument for this conclusion is that everyone should have autonomy over their

own medical and mortality choices. To die more quickly, one is not breaking the law if they starve to

death, stop caring about their immune system, or stop taking their medications. While assisted suicide
is legal in many nations, euthanasia is not (Silvers & Francis, 2005). Since lawmakers don't seem to

mind when people die in other ways, but disagree with a patient's decision to end his or her life with

medical assistance, their decision comes across as absurd. Maintaining or ending a human life is a

personal decision that the government has no business making.

This moral judgement is most challenged by arguments of a religious character. Wastefully

discarding the precious gift of life that God has bestowed is seen as a sin by many. This belief leads

some people to either accept their own suffering or that of their loved ones rather than risk being

wrongly accused of a much more serious crime. God, on the other hand, is essentially benevolent and

patient. Therefore, a person who sincerely believes in God should not wish to witness the suffering of

another person whose condition will never improve.

Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., ... & Janke, R. (2020).

Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nursing

ethics, 27(1), 152-167.

Fleming, J. I. (1996). Euthanasia: human rights and inalienability. The Linacre Quarterly, 63(1),

44-56.

Silvers, A., & Francis, L. P. (2005). Justice through trust: Disability and the “outlier problem” in

social contract theory. Ethics, 116(1), 40-76.