Euthanasia: Is it Morally Wrong?

[Superchick123]

Euthanasia. What a crazy controversial topic that causes huge debates. A topic that causes uproar.

What exactly is euthanasia?

The definition of euthanasia, as described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is, "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.".

the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy."

Whoa. Now that's a mouthful to take in. Today, I will simply be writing about my take on euthanasia. I will be writing about my personal feelings towards it. I really enjoy writing about controversial topics. If you'd like to hear my take on another controversial topic, I would be willing to hear opinions on what I should write on next, simply drop a comment in the opinion section and I will get back to you as soon as possible. All opinions expressed in this article are my own.

Now, let's begin.

Ever since I knew the definition of euthanasia, I was completely disgusted by this practice. It was something that really bothered me. Something that I thought of often. I have weighed down both the pros and cons of it, but I can't seem to shake the fact that I feel like this is a horrible thing to do to a person. I also feel like the issue itself is a slippery slope.

First off, it raises religious concerns. I'm a religious person, myself. Some people who do not have the same beliefs as me will disagree, and that's okay, we are all entitled to our own opinions. However, in my mind, this isn't right.

I'm a Catholic. I believe in God. I believe that God puts us on the Earth to fulfill our purpose. I believe that life is a spectacular gift that we must cherish. However, I also believe that this wonderful gift is something that should never be taken away from us, until God himself chooses to take it away from us. With that being said, I don't think that euthanasia is right. A person is having their life taken away from them before God chooses that it's the right time to do so.

Not only is euthanasia something that does not coincide with religion, it is also something morally wrong to do. If you're the physician who is euthanizing someone, wouldn't you feel guilty afterwards? Wouldn't it stay in your conscience for years to come? You basically killed someone. What if by some miracle that person would recover? What if the miracle would have occurred the day after you euthanized the person? You basically robbed someone of that amazing gift called life. You took away the most expensive, most valuable gift to exist.

Yes, I get it. It's the so called, "merciful,", thing to do. Doesn't it have a moral toll on you though?

Then there's the big thing. What if this person doesn't want to die?

Look at this picture. It says that 72 percent of the people had never given indication that they would want their lives terminated. Tell me that that isn't sick to you! That's basically killing someone the so called, "legal way.". It's wrong. There are so many cases where there could be other motives behind the euthanizing. What if there were some personal issues between the physician and the patient? Although it may seem improbable, there may be some cases where this could happen.

In 8 percent of these cases, the doctors believed that there were still alternative options besides killing the person. Now that is absolutely revolting. The doctors even knew that there were other options available besides killing someone.

14% of these patients were fully competent.".

In conclusion, I disagree with euthanasia.

I would love to hear your opinions on this topic. Personally, I disagree with euthanasia and I feel like it shouldn't be legal. What's your take?

[ak666]

For me the ultimate "immoral" action is trying to restrict the freedoms of an individual when he/she is not infringing on anyone else's rights and freedoms.

When we criminalize euthanasia, we are effectively using the mighty force of government to point a figurative gun to the patient's head and saying, "You have to live or else we'll lock you up. If you resist, we'll shoot you!"

Take abortion as an issue which is probably also ugly to you as a Christian. If we criminalize it, we are effectively pointing a gun at that pregnant teenager's head who lives in poverty, maybe hooked on substances, and saying, "You have to give birth or else we're going to lock you up! If you resist, we'll shoot you!"

How is that moral? Criminalizing anything that doesn't infringe on other people's rights is always immoral as I see it. Trying to force people to do good is not a moral action. Good and evil lose their meaning if we try to force people to only do good at gunpoint.

Also when you criminalize something, you almost always get unintended side effects. Making alcohol illegal might sound wonderful from an idealistic perspective. In actuality it lead to violence and crime on a whole new scale and didn't eliminate the demand for alcohol. It just became supplied by violent criminals instead.

I believe in discouraging things like suicide and abortion through peaceful means, through persuasion, but not forcing people at gunpoint against it.

[ak666]

The interesting questions you raise to me are ones of side effects of legalizing it, like doctors abusing these privileges to terminate a patient's life that could have otherwise been saved, e. g. In that case I see it as a form of medical malpractice. If doctors intended to kill patients, they can do this quite easily with or without the legalization of euthanasia. A patient's life is already literally in the doctor's hands in many cases. There should, at the very least, be a very strict criteria to establish consent. It shouldn't be something doctors can just perform haphazardly.

[ak666]

I ended up looking up the sources of those figures from the Netherlands since they seemed really off to me, as though doctors could just perform these malpractices left and right without suffering any consequences.

Apparently those figures came from a misrepresentation of a 25-year old study into the subject, and before euthanasia even became legalized. There's a new study:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733179/

It's not 72% of patients who had their lives terminated without giving any indication. The actual figure is around 0.2%. It's a whopping difference, and those 0.2% cases are patients who were already on the brink of death.

[ak666]

I used to have a view when I was around your age that laws are like a nice thing that "encourage" people to behave. From that kind of idealist perspective, there seems to be little wrong with enacting laws based on moral principles with the hopes of trying to get people to do the right thing.

I changed my views as I got older when I realized the problems with this type of optimistic view.

Law and government, as I see it, and I think this is a far more accurate way to look at it, represent *force*. They represent the analogical gun. When we enact laws to criminalize certain behaviors, we are pointing guns at people and saying, "You have to behave this way or else!"

I don't think that's very moral let alone "Christian". We shouldn't require using force and guns to dissuade people from suicide. If we're really interested in a pregnant girl and her child, we shouldn't have to reach for guns to dissuade her from abortion.

Legalizing something doesn't mean we have to approve of it...

[ak666]

... it just requires that we disapprove of trying to force people to do something at gunpoint. Force is obviously a practical necessity for some things. Without it, there's nothing to prevent some psychopath from stabbing and torturing a random person. However, force is an ugly thing. We should use it as sparingly as possible.

[ak666]

This is why I think even among the founders who were arguably quite Christian, there was a strong agreement that religion and government can form a most unholy coalition. It's because those who use government to enforce their religious views have already lost their moral edge; they've already become corrupted in their desire to make people good through force.

[Superchick123]

If someone can't raise a child, why the fuck are they having sex? Abortion is only alright if there is a health risk to the mother or that she was raped. Your whole ramble on the gunpoint thing is completely stupid.

[ak666]

Law is about gunpoint. When you try to criminalize something, that's using the government to enforce it. How do they enforce a law? With armed police officers.

As for abortion, take teenage girls in foster care with no family of their own. They are twice as likely statistically to get pregnant during their teenage years.

As you probably already know, a pregnant girl must nurture her body to minimize the chance of birth defects. On top of this, the future child needs proper care or else the child will most likely end up just like her, in poverty, potentially in foster care, and quite possibly becoming pregnant if she has a daughter or impregnating teenage girls if she has a son.

>> If someone can't raise a child, why the fuck are they having sex?

Exactly. Why on earth do you think people who can't even be responsible enough to be parents could suddenly magically become decent parents who won't abuse or neglect their children? What further laws would ensure that?

[ak666]

>> Abortion is only alright if there is a health risk to the mother or that she was raped.

Why on earth would it be all right in these circumstances? Do you think abortion is murder or do you not? If it's murder then how can murdering an innocent being be a justified response to being raped?

Furthermore, what do you think happens if you criminalize abortion with exemption for rape? You are aware that there are already a nontrivial number of false rape allegations, right? You don't think that number is going to skyrocket if claims of being raped becomes a special exemption allowing girls to abort?

[ak666]

If you want to be a charitable Christian and you spot a pregnant teenage girl in foster care, possibly hooked on narcotics, and want to see her give birth to a beautiful child and ensure the child has a proper upbringing, the nicest thing you can do is support her or even adopt her into your family. Using armed police officers to try to force her to have a child is hardly Christian.

[RedHood7]

@ak666 "For me the ultimate "immoral" action is trying to restrict the freedoms of an individual when he/she is not infringing on anyone else's rights and freedoms."

But it opens the possibility of patients being essentially killed under the legal guise of euthanasia. Specially the poor ones that would have stayed in a hospital for weeks on end while public healthcare systems don't always function well (in Brazil it usually feels like a war zone), and where the demand is too big for the supply of services. And yes, your comment is spot on when it comes to medical malpractice. That's probably the biggest fear, since the doctor has to accept the procedure. Not to mention that we'd need very well-thought criteria, and nothing less than a fully-aware patient, but then, who'd define the criteria? Doctors? Politicians? And more importantly: what mechanisms would ensure that the ones to define the criteria wouldn't be interested in making the practice a commonplace thing?

[ak666]

@RedHood7 In the US at least, medical malpractice can cost practitioners an enormous sum. There's great incentive, sometimes even bordering paranoia, to avoid it. Given how much incentive there is to avoid it and the ease at which medical practitioners can face the gravest of lawsuits, I doubt it would be abused this way.

It's apparently not even abused in the Netherlands. Those statistics cited above are based on a misinterpretation of a 25-year old study.

For Brazil it might be a more tricky case. I'd see it as largely a matter of the laws and regulations applied towards medical malpractice.

I'm also not in favor of suicide just from a moral perspective. I'd consider it my duty if I found someone desperate to end their life to persuade them to find reasons to live and help them in any way I can.

I just don't like reaching for the big guns of the government to try to force their hand.

[ak666]

@RedHood7 Another tricky part with legalizing anything is that it could increase the frequency at which that behavior occurs.

For example, if we legalize marijuana, would it increase the frequency of marijuana users? I have to admit that probably, yes, it would. Yet I believe it to actually be a more ethical course of action because it would regulate the business instead of making it an underground criminal activity. It'd reduce the incentive for violent criminals to exist and thrive who could end up hurting people who want nothing to do with marijuana.

And we still have the power or persuasion and education to steer people away from marijuana use. If we require laws and force and coercion to do that, I think we're already somewhat in the wrong.

Same type of thing with suicide as I see it. Legalizing it could increase the frequency, but I prefer to lean on the power of persuasion over the threat of force and violence to steer people away from it.

[ak666]

@RedHood7 Yet another way I see it in terms of side effects is that legalizing euthanasia is that it should significantly mitigate illegal suicides, like people jumping off buildings and plummeting to their doom at the horror (and sometimes even the injury) or innocent bystanders. This might be a stretch but it might even reduce the number of people who go on a violent killing spree before shooting themselves in the head. It might actually spare some lives of people who want nothing to do with the suicide victim by giving them a painless and easy way to go out if they're absolutely determined to take their own life.

[ak666]

Yet another way I see it in terms of side effects [is that, /of] legalizing euthanasia is that it should significantly mitigate illegal suicides [...]

[ak666]

That's another negative side effect about criminalizing things. When we criminalize certain behaviors, by nature those who persist to do it illegally will often cause negative side effects that spill over to perfectly innocent bystanders in society. That's just the inherent tendency with criminal behavior: it hurts far more innocent people who wanted nothing to do with the crime.

[Superchick123]

@ak666 No, the percentages are important. If they were not competent, then they did not give consent. People are all for consensual sex, why not consensual killing? This is murder.

[Superchick123]

@ak666 You're ridiculous with these long replies.

[ak666]

You are using bogus statistics to justify forcing people into doing something you want. It's hard to come up with a terse reply for such naivety.

[ak666]

It's a very simple moral dilemma. If you have a patient in excruciating pain who wants to avoid further suffering and a doctor willing to euthanize him, do you:

A) Point a gun at the doctor/patient and force them to avoid the act.
B) Try to persuade the patient to live.
C) Do nothing.

I imagine you would want to choose B. I just don't think you understand how criminalizing Euthanasia is actually favoring A, because you're not pointing the guns yourself. You're getting big police officers to do it for you. It's practically the same thing.

If we want to talk about side effects, we can, but it would help if you realize the statistics you cited are bogus and misleading.

[lumos]

No, I don't think it's morally wrong to help someone end their life in a peaceful and comfortable environment. If someone is in severe pain 24/7 and there is no cure, I don't see why we should prohibit them from ending their life. I do not agree with involuntary euthanasia, unless we're talking about patients who have been unconscious for a long time and there is seemingly no end to their unconscious state.
What you're saying is coming from an incredibly privileged and ignorant place. Maybe you'd understand if you had a friend or relative who suffered every day and couldn't do anything but lie in their bed all the time, because they were too weak and fatigued from the pain. See them suffer for a few years like that, doing absolutely nothing but being in pain, and then come back to tell us how it wonderful it is and how much it's worth it living a life like that.

[vanessacardui]

If I was in a position where I was in a lot of pain I would be eternally grateful to whomever euthanized me. If I was in a position where any chance at recovery was slim, I would want to end it. Why rack up excessive medical bills for something that likely won't work?
I do not subscribe to any religion. I do not know for sure if there is or is not a god/afterlife, though I do like the idea of reincarnation. I understand why people disagree with it for religious reasons. That is their right to do so. However, church and state are supposed to be separate. Since my decision to end my life is personal, and does no physical harm to anyone else, I believe it should be legal.
I can see an argument for euthanasia causing emotional harm to another person. My response to that is that most people in a position to even be considering euthanasia likely will not live long, anyway. At that point I feel that doctors are prolonging the inevitable, forcing loved ones to cling to a shred of distant hope, charging patients obscene amount of money, and for what? An extra month or so? Not worth it. Easier to just get it over with so loved ones can grieve and move on.

[Lunette]

To me, the "not having given any indication" is not necessarily the problem, many people keep their emotions for them until they break. The top three numbers are the important part with the first two being positive (voluntarily chose death) and the third being the negative one. While I assume that a small part of that is about "vegetables" made an agreement with the doctor/family to kill them if they were to become one, it still means that there is about 1/3 of the people that are not officially aware of getting killed. But prohibiting it would most likely not make these numbers any smaller and it would also make 2/3 of those people really unhappy.
Long story short: I am for euthanasia because everyone needs the possibility to chose and because the people that were killed without their consent would most likely also die a different way ("accidental" overdose, etc.)

[Superchick123]

No, the percentages are important. If they were not competent, then they did not give consent. People are all for consensual sex, why not consensual killing? This is murder.

[Lunette]

@Superchick123 I only said that the "not having given indication part" is not important in my eyes. I understand "fully competent" as having fulfilled the criteria for euthanasia (terminally ill, etc.) but correct me if there's a vocab error on my part, I'm not sure 'bout that. But criteria are not important if you actually want to die.
And to my knowledge, I said that the people being killed without their consent were the "negative one" of the three numbers. But as I said, I assume that most of the actual murders wouldn't vanish from prohibiting, they'd simply be killed differently (there are many ways to kill patients as a doctor).
It is also uncertain whether the percentages concern the sum of the patients from no. 1-3 or if it's only of no. 3. In both cases they don't matter much though.
72% not giving signs: Not equal to patients wishes, if they wanted it, it's good, if they didn't want it, it's murder.
8% with other options: murder remains murder, even if there was no

[Lopezz1999]

Before, I had a different view on this matter. First off, whenever someone killed a patient or a wounded animal, it was probably because the person was terminally ill, or had zero chance of survival, such as a hole in a struggling baby chick's neck. We all know no one would want to die, however the person/animal has only been killed because the doctor, etc has done it because they believe that the sick/injured would be sent to a better place (heaven), or at least be put out of their misery. They believe that death is better than terminal torture, and so do I, even with life being as beautiful as it is. I don't necessarily consider it a good thing for anyone to kill anything for any reason, but I don't consider it a bad thing either, especially if it's to protect another life in danger, or as you said, to stop the torture. Still not sure if I'd do it myself though lol.

[Octavius]

It very much depends on context.

What if someone was diagnosed with a terminal disease where they were at a point where doctors couldn't do anything more and soon they would start to be in agonizing pain and it would only get worse for a few months until they died? Maybe they want to at least be able to go peacefully and happy and euthanasia would be the only possible way to make that happen. Who would I be to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?

In terms of someone just being depressed no. From survivors of suicide I've listened to or people who have had horrendous periods of life many of them say that they are happy they are alive and that you shouldn't give up at a dark part of life because if you try you will get out of that and find happiness.

[Belgie]

I watched the father of a friend lie in agony for 8 years after Alzheimers had destroyed practically everything in his brain except the ability to cry and feel pain.

Euthanasia is a necessary and good thing in the right circumstances. And I trust the Doctors more than lawyers or politicians to decide when those circumstances are right.

[Superchick123]

Very well, trust who you want to trust. However, I don't know if you realize that there are VERY many things wrong with euthanasia.

[Belgie]

There's very many things wrong with loads of things. We live in an imperfect universe.

I told you why I'm in favour of euthanasia - I hope you never have to encounter circumstances in your life that force you to change your opinion.

[jpmoore89]

I am all for respecting someone's living will and "do not resuscitate" order aka, pull the plug and let nature or God take the course. I am not however for an active effort to stop life by an act of another person stopping the natural process of life of another person by drugs, suffocation, or other means. It is wrong to play God and stop life by an action of bringing about death or accelerating the death process.

[NerdInDenial]

If a person is in extreme pain, and they want to die, that is mercy. When soldiers in the battlefield are in so much pain because of an attack or chemical weapons, medics will give them heavy doses of morphine that will numb the pain but ultimately kill them. Sometimes, death is merciful.

[Lara1698]

I think it's a good thing if the everything is gone about correctly and that's what the person wants because I think someone should have the right if they think there life or lack of it is just causing them misery and sadness then they should be entitled to end it if they are suffering from a terminal illness

[KnightCross]

i agree with you. it's clear that legalizing Euthanasia would make a lot of people to abuse it. Once I heard in the news of my country of doctors who were "euthanasing" patients in the hospital because they were costing too much money for the (public) hospital, and euthanasia here is ilegal. Imagine if euthanasia become legal, no public hospital would be safe to go anymore LOL

Let alone that Euthanasia is morally wrong.

[jacquesvol]

It's up to the person asking euthanasia to decide if it's morally OK or wrong FOR HIM. HIS BODY, HIS LIFE.
Other persons have no reason or authority to judge it.

You don't like it? OK, don't ask for euthanasia.
Nobody forces you to get it.

Give sources for involuntary euthanasia.

Yes, my papers are signed and countersigned and filed with a non religious charity.

[TurnTable_Microphone]

Yes but remember if you disallow that due to playing God, then you have to disallow medicine when sick or is it the need to extend life but not try to extend life that you believe in? Where are we here?

[the_bright_one]

For me it all comes down to this:
If I ever was cut in half, or suffer anything that won't be compatible to life long term, or be in a situation where I might live life a bit longer in a vegetative state, I'd honor whoever ends my life sooner and quicker.

It's all personal opinon, of course. I'm sure other people would prefer to live in an aggravated state than die.

[America1st]

It's pretty simple if you believe in the Bible. It's a sin. If you don't and the person, not the kids or family want it, go for it. If it's the kids and family, no, because they, in many cases, want to hurry and get their inheritances.

[beautifulangel76]

I don't think it should be legal. Suicide no matter what should never be something that is looked at as a good thing

[John_Doesnt]

Give your "conclusion" to a person dying from cancer. Or try being in the pain of cancer yourself and say that euthanasia is "wrong". The pain is unbearable and there is no cure.

[jakeofalltrades]

I think doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill is as far as it should ever go. the doctor can give them the pill but the patient must be the one to take it

[Deathraider]

Euthanasia should be completely banned. And besides, legalization of euthanasia would lower health care cost.

[skeptic002]

if you have cancer and you wanna kill yourself you are stupid
if you have HIV or AIDS and wanna kill yourself you are stupid
everything is curable

[Pizzalover101]

In mu opion people deserve the right to choose if there not going to survive cuz there terminally ill

[Anonymous]

Euthanasia probably is morally wrong and there is likely room for abuse of it, but some people are in a lot of pain or in hopeless situations. Should they be stuck like that?