Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is a widely debated topic: the right to live, or the right to die? Euthanasiais defined as the intentional killing of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. There are many different kinds of euthanasia, but the most debated are voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. In voluntary, the patient gives their consent to die, where in non-voluntary the patient gives no consent or request to be killed. All kinds of euthanasia are illegal except for in the state of Oregon, the Netherlands, and Belgium. In those places, doctors cannot be guilty of euthanasia.
Where pro-euthanasia activists say euthanasia is a human right, those against euthanasia say it is not. In the Washington v. Glucksberg case of 1997, the Supreme Court stated that the “’right’ to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” That means that people are not entitled to be assisted in committing suicide. Laws to prevent euthanasia and assisted suicide are not there to “mandate suffering.” They are in place to protect the people from dishonest, unprincipled doctors. Some believe in a “slippery slope” theory, or a snowball effect. They are simply theorizing that if we open the door of legalizing euthanasia, we are giving the people an inch and they will take a mile. Those who support euthanasia often look to the Netherlands for a legally and ethically balanced example, yet it was reported that 1,040 people die each year by involuntary euthanasia. As said by an Addie Clark Harding Professor, just because a patient requests being killed, that doesn’t justify a reason to kill them. The abolition of one’s desire to continue living does not also abolish their living body the right to be respected. When no restrictions are in place, the medical community is known to commit atrocities. In the ‘80s, babies were killed because of mental disabilities. After new...