Many people argue, however, that a person who is terminally ill may make a miraculous recovery - it has happened in the past. Most terminally ill people whose pain and sufferings are relieved by excellent care, given by hospices, hospitals and GPs do not require to make decisions about euthanasia. It is only needed for those whose pain is not relived with any form of care or whose bodily disintegration is beyond bearing. Medical advances in recent years have made it possible to keep terminally ill people alive for beyond a length of time, without any hope of recovery or improvement. For this reason the 'living ill´ has come into use in the USA as part of the right-to-die principle. Most states now legally allow the making of such wills that instruct, GPs etc., to suspend treatment or refuse life-support measures in hopeless cases.
A pro-longed life is intolerable for people with a condition which leaves the brain alert but eventually shuts down all bodily functions and skills of communicating. How can people be expected to live like this? For people like this and also people in PVS, (persistent vegetative state) I believe that their legal representatives or close family should have the choice and the trust to let them live a prolonged life or to end their life and let them die with dignity. If people could make the decision themselves then I believe that the option of euthanasia should be open to them.
On the other hand, people believe that no one has the right to play God. Christians believe that we are made in the image of God and therefore human life is God´s gift to us and is uniquely precious - we are not the owners of life, but it´s minders´, we belong to God because he made us. Many religions follow this belief, so do not believe in suicide and assisted dying.
The opposition to euthanasia does not mean that people insist on medical treatment at all costs. Good medical practise is the alternative to euthanasia. Sometimes a distinction is made between active euthanasia (e.g. Giving a lethal injection) and positive euthanasia (withdrawing treatment). However it is misleading to describe withholding or discontinuing treatment as 'euthanasia´ unless it is done with the intention of killing the patient. Sometimes a treatment may be properly withdrawn even with the patient´s consent, for example, when it is ineffective, merely prolonging the dying process in a terminally ill patient.
When a sick or elderly patient asks for euthanasia, it can sometimes be caused by psychological and emotional pressures. How can we be sure it is what they really one and not just because they feel a burden to their families?
A lot of people believe that if voluntary euthanasia was legalised, society would soon allow involuntary euthanasia. This is based on the idea that if we change the law to allow a person to help someone die, we would not be able to control it. If there was to be a law like this, there would have to be strict rules, which involved the patient having knowledge of the whole process, making sure they are not forced into it and also that they are mentally able to make the decision.
So, should we allow people the choice of when they die? The debate about euthanasia props up all the time, even when it is not publicised, it is still happening secretly all the time. As an issue euthanasia refuses to die. Everyone has their own opinion on it, with many people wanting to see a change in the law. I think that there are three major sides in this debate: the people involved, the law and the religious and moral side. Each side raises very substantial factors and queries.
Obviously, the pain of losing a close relative or loved one is indescribable. The person is gone and many people come to terms with it, but often a larger trauma, which causes more grief, is having to watch that person suffer while you look on helplessly with no chance of easing their pain.
When finally that person dies, their relatives´ good memories may be overrun by the memories of that persons last few days of agony and misery, when all they could do was watch them suffer and loose dignity.
Legally, euthanasia is against the law. Simply put is it murder. The law is established by the religious and moral arguments, remembering that one of the ten commandments is 'thou shalt not kill´. But as in other areas in life, people come around as the years pass on and they become more accepting of others´ needs.
With euthanasia, there is a swelling amount of doctors who would like it legalised.
People may agree or disagree, but who can really know what they feel about the issue, until they are actually in that situation? At the moment, I believe that if I was faced with the fact that a terminally ill relative who was in a great deal of pain wanted to die, I would go along with what they wanted. I would not want to see them suffer, but this is only what I think now. I have never been in such a situation, and hope I never will, but if I was maybe I would hold a different view. Although, if a dog or cat is suffering, the vet is called upon and the animal is put to sleep. The owner is upset over the loss but they feel that they have done the right thing, by putting the pet out it´s misery.
I do not think we can look at human life in the same way however, as humans´ are treated better than animals and have more respect. But what is better, letting someone suffer a prolonged and very painful life, or allowing them to die with dignity , in peace and without pain?
This issue needs a lot of thought. Many people agree with voluntary euthanasia, many disagree but there is also a large amount of people undecided on the matter. The time will come when the Government and medical services will have to open their eyes to euthanasia, and there will be a lot of debate on the subject. Until then the euthanasia debate will continue to linger, like a terminal disease.
