Has one ever imagined a world in which one’s doctor could have the power to kill, simply at one’s request? Yes, it is called assisted suicide, or more specifically, euthanasia (Pereira 2011). The federal government should not legalize euthanasia, as euthanasia violates the mission of physicians, eliminates the possibility of life, and increases the chances of future unethical killing. While the argument for euthanasia greatly leans on freedom of choice, the ethical downsides significantly propose that euthanasia results in more harm than good, both in the present and long-run. A hot topic in the scientific world, euthanasia is a product of years of both research and controversy. The first aspect of the controversy is the mission of physicians …show more content…
Dr. Edmund D. Pelligrino, Professor at Georgetown University, argues that voluntary assisted suicide will transform into involuntary assisted suicide, void of consent. While seemingly-exaggerated at first sight, Pelligrino’s hypothesis is not far from possible (Pelligrino). Nurse Charles Cullen, also known as the Angel of Death, has been responsible for a number of murders in several hospitals. Cullen’s victims were patients who were in serious condition as Cullen killed them with different medications. Cullen indicates that “In a sense, I thought I was helping.” While he clearly murdered patients without their consent, Cullen’s philosophy interestingly corresponds to that of euthanasia (CBS New York). From a financial perspective, drugs for implementation of euthanasia may cost about $45 and therefore present an inexpensive alternative to treatments for diseases (International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide). Therefore, the application of euthanasia may unintentionally present itself to doctors as the preferable approach to life. Current initiatives aimed at improving mental health and preventing suicide may be totally eradicated, as assisted suicide grows as a solution to mental and psychological illnesses as well (Beckford). A patient from Oregon indicated that “the idea of assisted suicide terrifies” him, who has a history of depression in his family …show more content…
Physicians work for the purpose of treating patients, and euthanasia simply fulfills the opposite: harm. With euthanasia, physicians remove the possibility of life from the equation of care and treatment, and such an action can lead to further and greater harms. One may imagine a hypothetical situation in which his or her parent is in critical condition and has the option of undergoing assisted suicide. If one’s parent undergoes assisted suicide, how will he or she regard the role of the physician―a physician or a murderer? Also, how will one regard the situation―could his or her parent have lived? Ethical and moral boundaries are crossed with euthanasia. The euphemism itself, euthanasia, which breaks into the meanings of “good death” is meant to distort the reality of the act (Engram). The fact is, innocent patients will be manipulated into dying if euthanasia becomes legalized. The patient deserves to live, or at least, try to