Treaties on Euthanasia (PRO)
INTRODUCTION:
Euthanasia: a Greek name which means "Good Death". N.M. Harris provides with a definition of the term which says that euthanasia is a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending life, to relieve intractable suffering.1
Euthanasia has been classified as voluntary, non‐voluntary and involuntary. These three types can be further divided into active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia entails the administration of lethal substances to kill while Passive euthanasia entails with holding of common treatments.2
I. MORALITY
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"3 (United Nations, 1948) indeed, every individual has these rights; however, if an individual has the right to life, then should they not also have the right to die? The right to life holds jurisdiction over the right to death, but it should be differentiated that life is not the same as living. Lying in bed, incapable of movement, deprived of all senses, and unable to express or experience life is not living. The same can be said of a person so deeply infused with palliative medicine that one is incapable of fending for oneself or living to the ideal one personally believes to be fruitful and worthwhile. At what point does society decide that a heartbeat is no longer a viable form of living if one cannot experience or express oneself? The boundary between euthanasia and murder is often blurred; however, from an ethical standpoint, an individual cannot deny prolonging life causes undue physical, emotional, and mental pain. Is it right for society to deprive individuals of personal liberties by refusing to give the individual the right to die? Does everyone having the right to "life, liberty, and security of person" mean that regardless of the circumstance, an individual should have a heartbeat and when death is imminent deny that person the right to death, even when circumstances beyond human control dictate the loss of life?
Euthanasia: a Greek name which means "Good Death". N.M. Harris provides with a definition of the term which says that euthanasia is a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending life, to relieve intractable suffering.1
Euthanasia has been classified as voluntary, non‐voluntary and involuntary. These three types can be further divided into active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia entails the administration of lethal substances to kill while Passive euthanasia entails with holding of common treatments.2
I. MORALITY
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"3 (United Nations, 1948) indeed, every individual has these rights; however, if an individual has the right to life, then should they not also have the right to die? The right to life holds jurisdiction over the right to death, but it should be differentiated that life is not the same as living. Lying in bed, incapable of movement, deprived of all senses, and unable to express or experience life is not living. The same can be said of a person so deeply infused with palliative medicine that one is incapable of fending for oneself or living to the ideal one personally believes to be fruitful and worthwhile. At what point does society decide that a heartbeat is no longer a viable form of living if one cannot experience or express oneself? The boundary between euthanasia and murder is often blurred; however, from an ethical standpoint, an individual cannot deny prolonging life causes undue physical, emotional, and mental pain. Is it right for society to deprive individuals of personal liberties by refusing to give the individual the right to die? Does everyone having the right to "life, liberty, and security of person" mean that regardless of the circumstance, an individual should have a heartbeat and when death is imminent deny that person the right to death, even when circumstances beyond human control dictate the loss of life?