The Controversial Of Euthanasia Philosophy Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

After a lot of controversial, legal opinions and the debates that lasted thirty years, was the first law in the world which validate and regulates euthanasia and state it legally according to accurate situations and conditions established by the legislature, it was the Netherlands (the law of euthanasia) after the approval of all constitutional references got legally start working as of September 2003 .However, the law's opponents have accused the Government of the Netherlands as it passed such a law to ease the expenses of medical treatment and medicines for the citizens.

The euthanasia law is one of the most controversial issues, especially after it was adopted in both the Netherlands and Belgium and Denmark and some states of America and Canada in addition to some countries in South America and East Asia.

This raised the euthanasia debate in the social views of the people were divided between supporters and opponents, Some of them refused to discuss this matter at all, even if the patient was on his deathbed dying and suffering, while others encourage to take such a decision, as to their opinion euthanasia is the best solution to stop the agony and pain of the patients and their families.

Different reasons and justification while the public opinion is divided into two different ways: supportive and against.

"Definitions of euthanasia began appearing on the horizon of supporting or opposing.

"Speaking of euthanasia should make a distinction between it and between Brain Death /Clinical death/

And the Brain death issue does not considered controversial in contrast to the case of euthanasia. In the case of brain death the heart of the patient is ongoing under medical devices influence of which in turn issued electrical shipments for continuity in the work of the heart, while the brain entirely not working or in other words, we call this case brain death. In this case, the patient is dead, because the conclusion of the knowledge that if the state of (brain death) means that the human is dead like the death of the human heart. In such cases, after the human had already died, or so-called clinical death there is nothing possible just to separate the recovery from the organs body so that the patients' families can bury them in peace.

Clinical Death is a very common situation of all countries

around the world, and with different religious and political, all countries approach to justify stopping the work of recovery in such cases. This is also endorsed by the International Conference in Geneva / 1979 / that defined death as the interruption of the brain from working regardless of the heart rate of prosthetic devices. It is not euthanasia because the patient has already died and no longer feel anything, all that the heart beats only.

The soft killing, euthanasia, mercy bullet, all these words indicate one thing: to end the suffering of patients that impossible to be cured, by means of non-painful medical techniques. This topic is not new, because it was practiced by nations and primitive tribes, for example, lame people were killed because they were hindering the movement of the tribe, or the owners of infectious diseases were buried alive for preventative reasons, or

even killing incapable soldiers of movement in order to ease the transition and move.

In general, euthanasia is a response to the desire of the doctor treating patients, to end their lives due to the suffering of the patient from pain is intolerable, and desperately to recover his life, as advances stages of malignant diseases or difficult respiratory diseases.

In such cases, the patient has taken his decision in the death of his desire to get rid of the pain. In other words, the patient, and after knowing that his days are numbered and that his recovery is impossible and the pain had become unbearable having to resort to euthanasia.

But is this act is considered as murder and the doctor might get punishable by the low, or it's an act of humanitarian projects?

Is it possible to end their lives or helping a person commit suicide is acceptable from the religious aspect?

As we can see that euthanasia is controversial subject upon which many people debated whether to legalized or not and whether to accepted religiously, professionalize or socially or not

Legal view…..

In the view of the opponents of euthanasia in a legal way can't be because all of the laws and legislation in most countries of the world does not recognize for any reason, and to make punishable to who use it, even that in many countries are considered euthanasia or participating in a type of crimes are held accountable and sentenced to govern as the killer in the normal case. For example, the Syrian Penal Code of this type of things in the door (murder intended \ intentional) and punishable by a term of imprisonment of fifteen to twenty years. Commuted the sentence and then only object / 538 / of the Penal Code, which are fully applicable to the case of euthanasia, it provides as follows: ((punishable by imprisonment not more than ten years to kill a human being into a factor of compassion at the urgency of the request)). The Syrian Penal Code

Note that the law in Britain is involved in these cases such as murder, which fully punishable for up to fourteen years at least.

 It remains, then, as the offense of murder which is punishable by law, no matter what kind.

From the supporters viewpoint, the human has the rights to self-determination to dispose his body as his wants but does we have to leave the patients suffer from unbearable pain, just to remove the suspicion of murder.

The euthanasia is an assist to the legal suicide.

And life has taught us that each rule has exception

There is of course facts were meant to be before this law in the Netherlands. Dutch decided the facts. Enacted a law which people live now, in light of the current population explosion.

Some countries do not have the possibility to take care of the patient for a long time, if the patient died clinically and remained alive for many years, is sponsored by the potential for all that time? Dutch law has responded to the bold step in the reality. Laws and regulations in the general lines of the right to prevent that, but there are special situations and developments; we must look where is necessary case.

If euthanasia is conditional on the terms of accurate and immune caution and the views of the facility medical committees, it is possible in special cases, and in the interests of rights. Many doctors do not have the courage enough to help their patients.

We must use reason and science to benefit from developments in this area, and the Dutch law, developed to the fullest extent, which may not be bold and dare to like other countries, knowing that there are several countries now considering the possibility to follow such as the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, France and the other to pass a law similar to the euthanasia low.

And it is okay for the patient to write a will before entering the hospital, before being subjected to any disease, illness, assure that if he was in a suffering, the physician treating to raise his hands, and not trying to maintain life at any cost.

The government must take into account the rights, for example every person has the right to live or die. And governments have nothing to or take a very personal decision on behalf of the citizens

Social and human view……

In the social and human in spite of the prohibition of euthanasia religiously and legally, it is hidden in many societies. And their justify acted purely on humanitarian grounds to rid a patient of his recovery hopeless. Recalls that the concept of euthanasia meant to provide medical facilities to one of the patients on drugs known to provide a way for doctor in advance that the patient will be used to end his life. And after much study and research in the applicable law to allow euthanasia found that patients who do not have health insurance and therefore a burden on their families are financially more vulnerable to the euthanasia.

Consequently, governments and through the approval of the law to allow euthanasia have been abandoned the poor citizens of the social conditions of citizens and the inability to afford treatment. And must be recalled that the source of the idea of euthanasia from the veterinary medicine that are not produced in animals killed and also taken a stronghold of Nazism and racism, who were killed political enemies and say they are physically. And allow doctors to help patients to euthanasia may lead to exposing the most vulnerable people in society at risk.

And is now legally in the Netherlands and the big problem is the need that who decide on euthanasia? The patient is the in charged and is he always owned his mind

may be an infected patient had recurrent depression and requests a doctor to end his life is this permissible?

Therefore, the problem is very important. The tickly of the moral and religious laws, and this is possible, it is something else.

God, however, denied killing unless in right. May be the people able to proceed with this human right is to reduce pain. Such as the punishment of offenders, such as the Islamic Jihad in the way of Allah or die for the homeland, are all ways to die ... can have a convergence of religious or legal cover.

The idea of euthanasia is immoral and never Award for the opposition.

As for the supporters insist that the continuation of care in such circumstances, thus prolonging the life without meaning and adds to the suffering of relatives and friends and based on the patient, and there are other considerations required by justice in the distribution of resources and possibilities, where some see the need to provide a respire for the patient as another illness The value of life measured by the contribution of the human creative and productive when the value is dependent on other rights in the district needs? Life is not just a presence in the body and that the continuation of the patient in life not a real human compassion ‮. ‬

The goal is not to survive but the quality of life is more important.

Ethics view…..

One must respect and adhere to the ethics of the profession in order to achieve the public interest.

Some of the reasons that the theory held by the adversaries euthanasia, including the fact that there are hundreds of cases of terminally ill patients may recover their heath and so lived for decades after they were dying, however the science had always something new every day, and it is possible for the patients who does not cure today to recover their own health tomorrow, and that the task of the patient's physician is protecting his life and follow-up treatment by all possible means, in accordance to Abokrat's medical oath doctors swear to do what they could to help save the lives of patients and is not entitled to transgress the Covenant for the Elimination of the lives of their patients, just because they are in a desperate state. That euthanasia is not the function of the doctor, the doctor gives the medicine and relieve the pain, whatever its cause and magnitude, they should not allows the patient to suffer, because the doctors have several kind of drugs to kill so many pain. Killing the patient is quite another thing.

And how humanity is to continue to evolve and progress in the fields of medicine and to find solutions to difficult and desperate situations and understand the treatment and prevention? What if the doctors had put aside their ethics and their immediate disposal of their patients? How could the science see the light in the presence of such doctors savage. How can we learn from the experiences of the past and solve the problems if it does not let ourselves a chance discovery and attempts to life. All these questions concerning the physician and the chef of the hospital and all who dedicated himself to helping others and finding natural solutions. Measure the progress of mankind is through the achievements and the way in dealing with difficult situations. By shooting the bullet of mercy to our desperate patients, we could have ended the possibility of a solution to the chronic diseases and aging. The agreed with the euthanasia, believe that it is a good way to relieve and alleviate the patient from pain. It is the right of the patient to die in tranquility and comfort, and the role of doctors is to persuade family to do this work conscious and courageous.

Euthanasia medicine explains that the process of helping the patient to complete the painful agonies and, therefore, is to accelerate the process of ending the lives of patients and shortening of the pain, which is no hope of cure, as well as assisting the patient to alleviate the suffering in which they live. Merciful Death is the surest way to set the minimum for the cases of sick desperate, which is aimed at relieving the patient from pain, losing the patient to allow his\her family to accept the tragedy easier, rather than isolated in their torment, and his illness and his coma for an indefinite period.

If the death was inevitable, why let the patient suffer. Euthanasia is the solution, to be without pain or agony. And to accommodate their families for the convenience of the patient illness persistent, and make sure that this step was taken only after the final loss of hope for recovery.

Religions view……..

All religions, without exception, were clear in its instructions, even many of them {were more prepared for those types of}-made a lot of- punishment to who make this kind of act and to who cooperate with. Therefore, people who step oppose the idea of euthanasia is often driven by their religious affiliation, so whenever the idea (was) consulted to them they begin soon reading the instructions of the Koran, the divine and the Bible, or the equivalent of the various religions which, in turn, denied the killing of non-project for any reason. If euthanasia means ending the life of one human being to commit suicide or to assist, all of the religions deny that absolute and considers it murder, because God is the only one who give us life or death. The two religions - Judaism, Christianity, forbid murder, according to the fifth commandment of the Ten Commandments "Don't kill" and that the Church rejects neither abortion nor euthanasia. The view of Islam on this issue that is many Quran's verses which indicate that death and life are the prerogative of God alone. The concern of Islam to human life in self-defense did not make the property even for the same person, but it's owned to God who trusted him in his life, there mustn't be a suicide, as it mustn't be compromised by the others, even if the doctor aims to relieve the patient from pain.

For example, desperate patient in the hospital and doctor supervisor with all administrators and even the patient's family who support him, thinking that to get rid of pains after a long agony, all those will get several types of punishments will in the end for what they did and decided by standing against the instructions of God and his messengers.

Therefore, it is very difficult to cope with debt and the adoption of euthanasia, especially with the presence of the clear verses in the outlaw. However, life and death, regardless of this human suffering or the suffering of his family for him are related to the Lord.

Since when we think of the death as a solution to end our sufferings?

About the aches and pains which the patients had, some people see it as an opportunity for atonement sins and to get the high grades in Paradise. Any human suffers has to be patient until he dies. In the end the govern is to the God not to the human beings because life belongs to who give it to us and it mustn't be extracted for any reason.

And for the supporters :They see that the scientific problems in ‮natural areas and medical , should be discussed in the lab and not in the mosque or the church because the religious scholars discussion will transfer us from right and wrong conceptions to the free and taboo , and this in turn impedes the progress of scientific types. And of course, there has not been any religious generosity of supporters because of the strength of divine legislation, and they always tried to evade the discussion of euthanasia religiously note that many of them are not interested in the issue of religion in order that some of them have no religious affiliation at all.

Finally, and according to our view, the issue of euthanasia is controversial and there are a lot of problems and difficulties as it is very difficult to predict the future of euthanasia. Are there non-the Netherlands and Belgium will allow the application of the law of euthanasia, or the opposition in these countries would prevent their governments to achieve that. Even if some countries that adopted the law to allow euthanasia, it is very difficult to see it in the hard-line religious Saudi Arabia and Iran (as the militant Islamic) or Italian (the majority of extremist Catholic) was our return such States not to depart from the usual. However, with increasing numbers of people and the increase in diseases and epidemics, it is quite natural that the increase in chronic cases, which caused pain to their owners, which means that those who call for increased use of euthanasia patients and their families, doctors and even their supervisors in such situations and I think in my personal opinion that Governments will bow to the demands of those whom fear of the public interest. Even though the religious reasons for the opposition is very strong as we have noted, even though they are not for discussion.

But this takes the democratic majority and civil rights.

And we know that the law is the law. And in many countries the law is sometimes more than religion.


The End ….