Euthanasia Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taking a human life, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be. Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral.

They oppose killing patients under any circumstances. Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living. Canadian and most other law forbids any form of homicide, including euthanasia and it is alleged that assisted suicide does eventually accustom a society to violence.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

It has been claimed that euthanasia brutalizes a society, as mercy killings are seen as a form of socialized violence. In any case killing a human being is immoral and unethical.Life should be valued, not abused, since everyone is only given one chance to live.

Because death is final and irreversible, euthanasia contains within it the possibility that mistakes do happen and in fact an incorrect diagnosis is possible. If society condemns patients who are terminally ill and in the end a mistake in the diagnosis is discovered then the suffering and blame would not fall on technology but on society itself. Suffering is surely a terrible thing and society has a clear duty to comfort those in need and to ease their suffering when it can. But suffering is also a natural part of life with values for the individual and for others that we should not overlook.Knowing that a life can be taken at any time will incline people to give up too easily, hence seeking an escape in euthanasia. Killing a human being is not justified under any circumstances, which is why euthanasia should no longer be in practice. Although many countries around the world accept assisted suicide as part of their social norm, the fact remains that any type of murder is illegal in most societies. The American case of Its over Debbie, in which a gynecology resident gave a lethal injection of morphine to a woman with ovarian cancer, questions the legality of any doctors intents and actions.

First, the resident appears to have committed a felony: premeditated murder. Direct intentional homicide is a felony in all American jurisdictions, for which a plea of merciful motive is no excuse.Second, law aside, the physician behaved altogether in a scandalously unprofessional and unethical manner contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association. He did not know the patient: he had never seen her or her family, he did not study her chart, and he did not converse with her or her physician. He took, as an unambiguous command, her only words to him, Lets get this over with. Instead of thinking of ways in which he could ease her suffering, he brought her death.

This is no humane and thoughtful physician succumbing with fear and trembling to the pressures and wishes of a patient, for which there was truly no other recourse.This is an impulsive yet cold technician, arrogantly masquerading as a knight of compassion and humanity who should be punished for his actions. When a patient asks for assistance in dying, and the doctor then gives the patient a lethal injection, there is no way of disguising what is happening. The doctors intention is clear, this is undoubtedly a killing and not an allowing to die. An essential aspect of euthanasia is that it involves taking a human life of a person who is suffering from some disease of injury from which recovery cannot reasonably be expected. The action is deliberate and intentional as stated in section 231(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code: Murder is first degree when it is planned and deliberate.

Section 222(1) of the Criminal Code states: A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.Therefore, when a doctor injects a lethal injection he is doing so deliberately with the intention to cause death to his patient. Nowhere in the Criminal Code does it state that one can use a merciful plea as a defense for murder.

People like Dr. Kevorkian of Michigan, who continue masquerading as helpful god to assist terminally ill patient in death, should be incarcerated for breaking the law. If society allows one or two or three people get away with cold-blooded murder, then a sure downfall will follow. Hence, due to the legal aspects, euthanasia should not be part of any society.

In a survey conducted for the purpose of this research project, people were asked whether given an opportunity to ease the suffering of their loved ones by mercy killing them, 58% said yes. However it is very interesting to note that when the survey group was asked questions such as whether people that assist in a suicide should be convicted of murder, or whether do they think that assisted suicide has no place in a civilized society, these are the answers that were produced: 83% of the people answered yes to the first question and 89% answered yes to the second question. This, in fact, shows quite a contradiction, because those answers basically mean that part of the same people that would assist in a suicide of their loved one to ease their suffering, also considered euthanasia immoral and unethical, as well as a criminal offence equal to murder.

* Although human suffering in its multiple dimensions is a factor of life, which causes great pain and anguish, it must not be used as a reason for justifying the direct taking of human life. From an ethical point of view there is no justification for euthanasia. This conclusion is based on the principle integral to the Catholic moral tradition of the sanctity of life, which states that every persons life must be reverenced because of its personal dignity and value. God must always be understood as the Creator and Sustainer of life.Norman St. John Stevas situates this principle well: The value of human life for the Christian in the first century A.D.

, as today, rested not on its development of the superior sentience but on the unique character of the union of a body and soul both desired for eternal life. The right to life thus has a philosophical foundationRespect for the lives of others *because of their eternal destiny is the essence of the Christian teaching. It should be clear that every individual has a g …