Introduction
In the era of advanced discoveries and technology, does assisted suicide offer progressive or retrogressive options on improving health care delivery? Who among the human being hold the power to grant termination of a voiceless life, when it should be guarded? These are the most critical question roaming in my mind when I give the topic of euthanasia a place in my mind. Euthanasia also referred to as assisted suicide is life termination of a critically ill patient where efforts towards saving the patient’s life seem worthless. Amid myriad of arguments and debate, the practice has been acceded to law in countries such as Belgium, Netherland, Australia, Colombia, India, Ireland, Luxembourg and Mexico. In United States, States of Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and Montana are among those that have legalized euthanasia.
Health care practitioners are mandated with the role and responsibility of restoring health, but not termination of lives. The practice gives the patient the right to consent, and if not in a position, relatives or courts can give consent on behave of the patient. Despite polls illustrating growing support for euthanasia, ethical concerns on the topic prove otherwise. The intriguing fact is that few of these studies seek views from the sick, but majors on those believed to carry financial and workload burdens. With euthanasia offering solutions to lift the burdens, the answer is outright.
According to reports from Doctor Carlos Gomez, of United State and Doctor Herbert Hendin from Netherland, the practice of euthanasia has been proved to have been taken off bound by medical practitioners (Hendin, 1998; Gomez, 2008). Some of the cases get a go ahead without patient’s consent while others are conducted on relatives’ request, may be conflicting with the patients will. In other areas, the practice is used as a measure to reduce workload and cost of management among hospitals, not considering patient’s welfare. Doctor Gomez argues noted that euthanasia is also being used to terminate lives of mentally disturbed patients among other non-critical conditions (Gomez, 2008). Euthanasia lacks ethical grounds, violates social norms, and abuses religious doctrines. Religiously only the Creator has the capacity to take life, but not any human being.
Conclusion
Euthanasia offers retrogressive approaches towards improving health. It offers an easier choice, yet critically ill patient can compel medical practitioners and other scientists to discover approaches of improving such condition, especially in this era of technology advancements. Every minute lived is worth; thus, people should focus on prolonging life, but not condoning measures that terminate lives.
Do You want to get Your uniqe persuasive speech? Just entrust it to us and our professional speech writers will create an outstanding persuasive speech for your personal requirements. Also You will get your 15% SALE on first order!
