Euthanasia Should Be Legalized Or Not

Spread the love


In the current world, euthanasia has continued to attract debates. Among the major controversies around it has been whether or not to legalize it. Advocates of Euthanasia assert that euthanasia must be legalized as it assists hopeless, sick people to stop their suffering. They assert that individuals are entitled to do whatever they desire with their body, including ending their personal lives as a way of halting the pain.  Contrary, those against euthanasia assert that it must remain outlawed. They assert that despite the fact that euthanasia presents good aims, there is no right to stop their lives.  They assert that it is against the law and sinful before the Creator. On top of this, euthanasia has many undesirable as well as harmful effects that prove its legalization as bad.  Therefore, this paper provides reasons to why euthanasia should not be legalized.


Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized

The first basis of rejecting the legalization of euthanasia bases on the fact that euthanasia is murder. From its definition, Euthanasia means the conscious action of ending life by withholding some necessary treatment in what is so-called passive euthanasia or carrying out a particular procedure which directly and quickly leads to death or what is referred to as active euthanasia (Dworkin, Frey, & Bok, 1998).  Despite being viewed by some as advantageous, active as well as passive euthanasia is sinful, immoral and is similar to abortion which is murder. From the definition of murder, it is the intentional taking away the life of an individual.  Those against euthanasia, particularly Catholics, assert that practicing it is wrong since it is a form of murder. Bering in mind that life is natural, death should also remain natural and not induced.  As a matter of fact, the sixth Commandments among Christian’s states that one shall not kill.  From this point, any killing, irrespective of motives needs to remain impermissible

The other reason as to why euthanasia should not be legalized is that it gives a lot of power to medical practitioners to kill. Legalization of euthanasia can over empower doctors.  This can involve giving them an environment to play God and doctors, from the fact that many regard their profession as an occupation rather than a passion, will use this chance.  For those who are unscrupulous, legalizing it will become a huge leeway for them. Many people remain unaware that many medical practitioners currently pursue self-inclined shortcuts as a way of earning more or making particular things go as they desire (Devettere, 2016). For example, in maternity hospitals; some doctors force some patients to undergo unnecessary caesarean sections during weekdays just as a strategy to guarantee them interrupted weekends. Other medical cases include doctors coercing patients to go through a surgery immediately just as a way to totally get rid of particular patients. Others even encourage patients to take vaccinations or taking some medication, even when not necessary to make extra money. Therefore, legalization of euthanasia can easily tempt doctors to kill others quickly to benefit in the end. Some of the vulnerable situations can include troublesome cases or hassle of dealing with importunate people. One of the best examples of such situation is that of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a pathologist. He took advantage of his biological patients’ agony and killed them. He wanted to popularize euthanasia to harvest body organs for transplantation purpose, and to experiment sick persons and injured persons. Therefore, doctors, just like other people, are selfish, lazy and feeble to temptations. During pressing scenarios, doctors can likely commit mistakes and come up with wrong decisions. Hence, euthanasia must not get legalized because voluntary euthanasia turns doctors into m most dangerous people in the society.

The other reason against legalization of euthanasia is that it destroys patients’ trust in the medical profession. Doctors remain influential people who people run to when sick, weak as well as in pain. Therefore, they needed to be trusted and ran to for guidance as well as advice on health. They are people with the ability to cure and save lives with this as their major objective which is saving and not harming. The danger comes in when one with a particular illness, finds out that the doctor he trusts with his life practices euthanasia. Chances that the patient will visit him and follow medication recommendations are very low. When people visit the hospital, they desire that their doctor will do all it takes to keep life (Devettere, 2016). They always do not wish giving up life. Doctors undergo seriously, extensive training to provide safe as well as quality healthcare to patients. They also take oaths to treat patients to the great best of their abilities. Doctors’ job needs to remain to eliminate pain among patients, and not ending patients’ lives. Legalization of euthanasia gives patients difficult time to trust doctors, particularly when they go to doctors who are thinking about whether or not to help them live. Therefore, euthanasia destroys trust between patients and physicians.

The other reason against euthanasia is that it undermines research in the medical field. Some ideas propel some people to end their lives. The pain sometimes becomes too much to an extent that it becomes unbearable making people rather die than continue suffering.  Despite this, o supporters of euthanasia need to realize that there is a cure for illnesses irrespective of how worst the illnesses are. Even without current discovery, by time, solutions will come (Keown, 1998).  This situation has happened before in those decades ago, medicines such as pain reliever and antibiotics instruments as well as machines for medical operations did not exist. From advanced research coupled with great argue to prolong life led to their discovery. Many sick persons are now ripping advantages from them including live getting saved. As a way of discovering effective medicines as well as treatments, particularly to adverse illnesses like cancer or liver problems, scientists and inventors need to focus much on studies. There is also a need for the government to fund research as a way of getting highly effective outcomes. When the focus shifts from treating diseases to eliminating lives, researchers and their motivation to come up with treatment for the disease will become compromised. Instead of carrying out their best to look for alternative health solutions, they will become discouraged from the fact that they will be aware that a solution is already in existence – that is euthanasia (Devettere, 2016). Doctors, as well as care providers, will similarly become less committed to giving palliative care as well as saving lives from the fact that they will have a legal right to end lives.

Legalizing euthanasia has a connotation that life is not worth living. Those advocating for euthanasia always assert that it is a way of dying with dignity. This view is entirely wrong. Euthanasia in itself kills and destroys life. Welcoming what life bring and keeping the fight to the end irrespective of hardships or pain and waiting for natural death is what truly becomes dying with dignity. Legalization of euthanasia as well as convincing the society to wipe itself as a way of ending the suffering is similar to taking lives as no longer worthy to get saved (Keown, 1998). People need to know that all life on Earth, including disabilities, injuries as well as life-threatening situations is important. People have a purpose as to why life is in them. Therefore, ending lives of those in suffering is extremely unethical. If people perceive ending lives of the suffering is helpful, they are lost.  Such perceptions portray hopelessness as well as unworthiness.  Real compassion means getting ways to reduce and eliminate pain, suffering and showing love as well as care to such persons. Avoiding giving up irrespective of hard conditions is what describes real compassion to life.  Life remains a beautiful thing. If people can convince depressed patients that many reasons exist as to why people live, euthanasia will never get any consideration.

The other reason against euthanasia legalization is that it alters public conscience. In any society law remains a robust tool that can get utilized used to change the beliefs, behavior as well as the conscience of people. Whenever any practice turns a legal obligation and accepted, it turns right before society.  Irrespective of the fact that personal preference, as well as principle, can be against, people end up practicing it and believing that it is rightfully okay. The law is trusted from the fact that it is believed to be in the best interest of people and that it is always right (Devettere, 2016). One way that shows how legal definitions can impact the way of life, as well as the public conscience cab, is depicted from the assisted killing of the twin brothers, Marc and Eddy Verbessem.  The twins were born deaf and opted for euthanasia on learning that they would as well become blind from another congenital disease. The Daily Telegraph reported that their local hospital refused to carry out the exercise from the fact that the twin was had no serious physical pain or terminally illness. Under Belgian law, Euthanasia allowed if the patient makes their wishes clearly and if they are facing unbearable pain. This mainly bases on a doctor’s examination. From the above scenario, critics asserted that the twin brothers had no unbearable pain, but Professor Distelmans, a euthanasia activist, decided to carry out euthanasia on them. He went on and defended his pursuit saying that there existed some unbearable psychological suffering for the twin. The doctor who presided over the process euthanasia asserted that it became a relief to experience their suffering end. Just a few days after carrying out euthanasia on the twins, the Belgium’s ruling Socialists came up with a new law amendment to allow children as well as people who suffer from dementia to opt for permission to end their lives. This explanation is just one of the examples that show how the society began to see that euthanasia is okay. Therefore, it is high possibility that people can do it without any sense of guilt (Keown, 1998).

Euthanasia Legalization can also lead to more Killings. From euthanasia’s opposition angle, its legalization would lead the society down into a dangerous slope. Legalizing euthanasia will make people start to agree that suicide is a conventional solution to problems in life. Instead of remaining just an alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions, it would finally turn into a social norm with ending life getting permitted for whatever person, whether children, depressed, elderly or those who cannot make such a request to end life. The experience with euthanasia in Dutch is the proof of realities of how slippery the slope is. Basing on the fact that euthanasia was legalized in Dutch, euthanasia deaths has continued to go up substantially. For instance, in 2006, only 1,923 cases were reported, but when it came to 2007, statistics recorded 2,120 cases. After four years which was   2011, approximately 4,000 euthanasia deaths were recorded.  Therefore, there is a clear estimate that figures will continue to go up significantly over a period. The above statistics sound serious, but they are just a tiny part of the great picture.  The worse of it all is that a good number of people succumb to involuntarily euthanasia. This situation means that doctor always ends their lives without their consent. Evidence also asserts that over 50% of deaths resulting from euthanasia goes unreported. It is asserted that the real assisted deaths statistics would be much greater as compared to what goes on record.  The high alarm to these practices gets prompted by the development of its legality. Despite the fact that some jurisdictions allow euthanasia for people those suffering from chronic as well as unbearable illnesses, legalization can make it permeate even harmless levels.   People suffering from dementia, or those above 70, those severely physically challenged, and the mentally ill can easily fall victims. Therefore, if euthanasia gets legalized, the killing will quickly become a norm.

Legalizing euthanasia can easily encourage vulnerable individuals to halt their lives. Advocates of euthanasia  champion for its  legalization with a  believe that it is an alternative  to protect “vulnerable individuals” from  the wrongful life ending  and avail  suffering  people with  real, peaceful “ dignity death .” This assumption can be countered with a defense that legalizing euthanasia have nothing like protecting vulnerable individuals. Instead, it forces them to decide unilaterally. Legalizing euthanasia will make the sick as well as dependent persons to be influenced to choose to die, instead of suffering and adding a burden to families.  It cannot be disputed that dependent as well as ill persons always feel worthless and a big burden to families (Keown, 1998). The reason is that their bodies are weak to engage in meaningful work to assist and contribute to families as well as communities. It, therefore, makes them feel worthless and even useless in the family. It, therefore, becomes a great reason as to why vulnerable people desire the option of dying.  Lucky enough, legalization is yet to be permitted in many jurisdictions in the world.  In case it was available, no person could stop vulnerable people from requesting for it. Sick, as well as the physically challenged and those with problems, will opt for euthanasia as the sole solution.

The other reason to oppose legalization of euthanasia is that those people who request for it do not desire to die. During tough situations, particularly in death’s presence, patients become extremely vulnerable. They experience knowledge deficit as well as strength to understand entirely their condition which ends up affecting their choices.   It is unfortunate that many people think that the greatest reason as to why patients as for euthanasia is because of the pain suffering.  But to be precise, it is always the fear of the unknown (Letellier & Council of Europe, 2004). Most of them get terrified on the likely outcomes of their conditions such as the likelihood of surviving without actually living and the effects to their families. The prove to this point is the survey that was carried out in Oregon, United States where  66 percent of those who requested for assisted dying euthanasia did so because of fears of becoming a burden to the families. It cannot be disputed that no person desires to become a burden to his or her family, friends as well as the society (Keown, 1998). But people need to know that it’s similarly true this individual desires to die. Most of those who confess “let me die,” often do not mean their say and in most cases they become thankful if such requests get turned down (Devettere, 2016). Exercising euthanasia remains an unwise a well as a wrong choice. It is true that serious illness and disability is painful, but ending lives does not provide an answer to such conditions. Vulnerable persons need love as well as support from particularly their families, friends, and doctors. If those staying with the vulnerable individuals shows value for lives, the vulnerable will get motivated to go on with life irrespective of the painful. When one Considers Sudha Chandran, Ludwig van Beethoven, Albert Einstein, Tanny Grey-Thompson, Sheryl Crow, Anne Romney as well as Hugh Jackman, it can be discovered that they suffered life-threatening disabilities and diseases. What marvels the world is that they contributed significantly to the by then society. Thinking of never killing themselves was not their option.  This made them to encounter pain and not considering euthanasia as an option since it wasn’t.

The last point against legalization of euthanasia is that it is unnecessary from the fact that many better alternatives are available. Many people assume that getting diagnosed with the terminal condition has only two options to choose. They think that one has to either slowly die in pain or quickly die quickly with assisted death. They fail to realize that another option exists which is that vulnerable persons can choose love as well as competent care. As earlier mentioned the main fear of individuals diagnosed with illnesses is not physical pain, but the fear appearing as a burden and getting deserted by families (Devettere, 2016). The moment patients experience a welcome, and not appearing as a burden to those around;  their pain get controlled and symptoms getting reduced to flexible terms, their desire for assisted death disappears.  Therefore, is not that euthanasia is wrong or right, practical or unworkable desirable or repugnant, but is just out of reality.


To conclude, vulnerable persons do not opt for euthanasia.  Despite the fact that it can provide them with dignified, peaceful death, the process going through it is never desired. In many situations, euthanasia decisions get influenced by doctors.  Legalizing euthanasia can be one of the greatest mistakes in the history of humanity.  It defeats the law of ethics and creation.  Since life is natural, death should only come when it may. Therefore, death should be natural just as life is. Euthanasia should not be legalized in any situations.



Devettere, R. J. (2016). Practical decision making in health care ethics: Cases, Concepts, and        virtue of prudence.

Dworkin, G., Frey, R. G., & Bok, S. (1998): Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.     Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Griffiths, J., Bood, A., & Weyers, H. (1998): Euthanasia and law in the Netherlands.        Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press.

Keown, J. (1998). Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, clinical and legal perspectives. Cambridge         [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Letellier, P., & Council of Europe (2004): Euthanasia: Vol. 2. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

© 2021:, All Rights Reserved | Innovation Theme by: D5 Creation | Powered by: WordPress
error: Content is protected !!
Whatsapp Us