When is it justifiable to do something- or not do something- that would result in the death of someone else? When they are suffering and are going to pass on anyways, then perhaps it is. Euthanasia isn’t just killing someone; it’s simply a process that has been quickened. And frankly, the option should be available for those that suffer.
The first question to tackle is what exactly is euthanasia. Jonathan Moreno, PhD, defines that “Strictly speaking, the term 'euthanasia' refers to actions or omissions that result in the death of a person who is already gravely ill” (Moreno). There are several types of euthanasia, include active, action taken to result in someone’s death; passive, not giving treatment, or withdrawing treatment that would sustain life; voluntary, in accordance with one’s wishes; and non-voluntary, not in accordance, generally due to their lack of ability to make the decision; e.g., while in a coma (BBC). In sum, euthanasia is the quickening of death by choice and subsequent action or inaction from the physician.
However, it would only applicable in certain situations. In Holland, where it is legal, there are rather strict guidelines for the process. Some of their requirements include patient "experiencing underable pain", being
…show more content…
The BBC defines it as “physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends” (BBC). But what would the effects be on the person that has to go and see their loved one in order to comfort them about their impending death? Say their loved one is suffering, mentally or physically, from this process. Would it not bring peace of mind to everyone to know that suffering had stopped? Forbidding the option of the quickening of the inevitable is, frankly, nothing but a disservice to anyone going through the