CRITIQUE THEORY

Critique Theory

Thesis statement“Should physician assisted suicide or euthanasia be made legal?”Introduction

Physician assisted killing can be defined as, “a condition in which the intentional decision taken by the patient to end his/her life, assisted by the physician, to end sufferings of an incurable and a prolonged disease.” In intelligible words, the doctor terminates the life at the request of the patient.

The basis of the debate of euthanasia is the Hippocratic Oath, condemning this practice of indirect suicidal attempt.

Physician assisted suicide has been a debatable issue within the last two centuries but, the results are still unclear, whether this practice should be legalized throughout the world or not.

Within the last two centuries, the public has spurned diverse discussions about Physician-assisted suicide from different historic perspectives (Emanuel E J, 1994). Although this debate has been lengthy and many of the discussions about this issue, above the centuries, are repetitive, new ideas and concerns do emerge with the current debate. Euthanasia can be classified into various categories, such as, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia.

Voluntary active euthanasia, is the practice of administering medication to induce patient's death, as per patient request, with his/her full consent. In case of an involuntary active euthanasia, the physician takes a medical decision to end the life of the suffering patient, without the request or consent of the patient, but the condition that the patient was compliant with the idea of ending his/her own life. Another case is the non-voluntary euthanasia, a case where the termination of the patient's life, by the physician without his/her compliance and request. This can be done by putting a halt to the life sustaining treatment medication, letting the patient die.Discussion

Many legal issues arise with the question whether euthanasia should be legalized or not.

To state that euthanasia should be permitted is because, the decision to live and die, i.e. the control over one's life, is the fundamental right of a person. The ability to make self proclaimed decisions and control the circumstances of one's own being should be an individual's right.

In a condition, where a patient is suffering from a prolonged disease, making it impossible to exercise control over his/her body, the ability to make a decision to end the prolonged suffering and state of hopelessness should be within the reach of the patient.

It is not possible to cure all the diseases, and the condition which presents itself to the public eye, is even more at an arm's length to reality, than anyone can realize. In case of such a condition, it sometimes becomes necessary for the patient to take the decision of euthanasia. The law finds necessary to regulate the cases of euthanasia assists the fact, that the occurrence of suicidal attempts decreased.

In a lawful controlled environment which allows medically assisted suicide, seldom examples of this blasphemous decision is seen. It is only to terminate sufferings of such an illness which cannot be medically treated.

The decision to end one's life, over an extended suffering in the hands of illness, is a person's right but, the point when the state ...