No one can foresee his date of death.

No one can foresee his date of
death. Even suicides cannot be one hundred percent sure that their suicide will
be fatal. There are many cases when people fell from a great height and
remained alive, practically unscathed. Also, there are many examples of how
people survived after taking potent poisons. Of course, most often even if
people survived after this, then all their life they have to live with injuries
or other consequences. Nowadays, we start to hear the word euthanasia more
often. This is an interruption of the life of an incurable patient, suffering
from his condition, per his request or the wishes of his relatives. If, for
example, a doctor wants to give a patient suffering from cancer an overdose of
drugs that would end the patient’s life, this can be considered as euthanasia.
Intentionally helping or encouraging a person to commit suicide would also be
considered as assisted suicide. A good example would be obtaining powerful
sedatives for a terminally ill person with a full awareness that the medication
would be used for suicide. For some people, it is their right to make their own
choices, help from suffering and pain. However, there are various reasons why
some people are against the euthanasia, including ethics, religion, and moral
responsibility for doctors.

If you think that euthanasia
appeared about a hundred years ago, then you are mistaken. It existed since
ancient times. At that time, it was not called euthanasia, and people did not
use it the way it is now. In ancient Sparta the weak children were dumped from
the cliff in to the water. At that time, it was considered quite normal. So why
in our time euthanasia considered as something monstrous and wrong? Hippocrates,
the universally recognized father of medicine and a doctor, claimed that he
would never take a person’s life voluntarily with the use of lethal drugs. He
believed that medicine is a humane science. Therefore, some doctors who gave
the oath of Hippocrates do not recognize euthanasia and refuse to apply it. However,
there are some physicians, who are practicing euthanasia now or use to apply it
before. For example, the most know physician in the United States, who provided
euthanasia, was Doctor Jack Kevorkian. Sixty-nine persons were killed by him,
using the euthanasia in Oakland County, Michigan, between 1990 and 1998.
Kevorkian assisted in the deaths of over one hundred people.  He was placed in a jail in 1999, after being
found guilty of second-degree murder. Most patients in the United States who
get assistance from a specialist in committing suicide or who undergo
euthanasia are terminally ill men over the age of 65 years who have cancer,
neurologic disease, or end-stage heart or lung disease. The patients who died
with Kevorkian’s assistance had similar diagnoses; however, according to the
autopsy, only 25 percent were terminally ill. Seventy-two percent of the
patients had a recent decline in health status that may have precipitated the
desire to die. Seventy-one percent were women, a finding that is noteworthy
because suicide rates are usually lower among women than among men. People who
were divorced or had never married were overrepresented among those who died
with Kevorkian’s assistance, suggesting the need for a better understanding of
the familial and psychosocial context of decision making at the end of life.
(Lori A. Roscoe, Julie E. Malphurs, L. J. Dragovic, Donna Cohen. . (2001) A
Comparison of Characteristics of Kevorkian Euthanasia Cases and
Physician-Assisted Suicides in Oregon. The Gerontologist 41:4, 439-446.)
Jack Kevorkian doesn’t equivocate about his mission in life. It is to pioneer
radical change in the way people die. In his writings, Kevorkian advocates a
society that permits euthanasia for the dying, the disabled, the mentally ill,
infants with birth defects and comatose adults. He envisions a global system of
death on demand run by doctors who operate without oversight from government or
ethicists. As Kevorkian describes in his book Prescription: Medicide: The
Goodness of Planned Death, they include those afflicted by “the end stage
of incurable disease, crippling deformity, or severe trauma,” people with
“intense anxiety or psychic torture inflicted by self or others,” and
those “who decide that they must die because of their “religions or
philosophical tenets or inflexible personal convictions”. (New Republic.
05/26/97, Vol. 216 Issue 21, p22-28. 7p. 1 Black and White Photograph.)

Although, the specific reasons for the legalization of euthanasia are
as follows. Euthanasia makes it possible to fully exercise the human right to
dispose of their lives, including making decisions on the termination of their
own lives. Secondly, a person is recognized as the highest value, and
consequently, her/his real well-being, the needs and the right to
self-determination, the right to freedom, the right to respect for dignity, the
right to dignity must be guaranteed and fully guaranteed. Thirdly, euthanasia
provides the implementation of one of the fundamental principles of law, the
principle of humanism. Euthanasia is humane because it stops the suffering and
torment of an incurably sick person. The state and society must recognize this
right not for everyone, but for the sake of the small group of people who need
it. It is also worth noting the point of view of the European Court of Human
Rights, which maintains a neutral position on this issue, recognizing the right
of the States Parties to autonomy in settlement of euthanasia (“The Right To
Assisted Suicide In The Case Law Of The European Court Of Human Rights.”).
Analyzing their decisions about euthanasia, it can be seen that, in most cases,
the court did not take into account the material aspect of the cases, but
resolved them on the basis of violations of the procedural form.

in the modern world, the question of euthanasia is very acute in many
countries, it is necessary to understand why people are so afraid of this word?
For some people, euthanasia is like killing, whereas for the other it is the
relief. In some countries it is prohibited by legal or religious reasons.
People tend to believe that it is up to God to decide how much a person should
live and how to die. Neither
Christian, nor the Muslim, nor the Hindu world does not accept intentional
deprivation of a person’s life, and therefore this process in the eyes of religious
people is the most real murder. In all Islamic countries, in accordance with
religious beliefs, direct euthanasia is prohibited. Iran is no exception. In
Iranian law, euthanasia is not explicitly mentioned in the legal texts, but
there are some exceptions that lead to a more lenient punishment in some murder
cases. However, the euthanasia is a murder with intent, and comes from a
religious doctrine of Muslims. One study conducted among 55 physician shows
that 98% of them think that euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide is a violation of human dignity, and they would
not be willing to provide those (Karami K, Maria C, Nasibeh K (2012). Physicians’ attitude about
euthanasia and assisted suicide. Int J Med Med Sci, 4: 138–141).
Because of the above, there are still no attempts for broader interventions for
legalizing mercy killing (Noori F (2014). Euthanasia in Iranian Criminal
System. Research Journal of Applied
Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 7: 2182–2184.)
Perhaps it’s all about religious or moral beliefs.  In 1991 and
1992, citizens in Washington and California, respectively, voted on two
referenda; these referenda sought to sanction legally both euthanasia and
physician-assisted suicide, or physician-assisted dying. In both cases, voters
defeated these referenda by very narrow margins—about 54 percent to 46 percent
in both cases. However, in 1994, the citizens of Oregon were asked to vote on
Measure 16, which asked, “Shall law allow terminally ill adult Oregon patients
voluntary informed choice to obtain physician’s prescription for drugs to end
life?” (Campbell 1994, 9). In this case, the measure passed, which ultimately
led to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (“The Oregon Death with Dignity Act,”
in Beauchamp et al. 2008, 404–406). The critical difference between this Oregon
statute and those proposed in Washington and California is its restriction to
physician-assisted suicide. When Oregonian voters approved this measure in
November 1994 by a very narrow margin, Oregon became “the only place in the
world where doctors may legally help patients end their lives”. However, that
was not the end of the story. The day before the measure was to become law, its
enactment was blocked by a court challenge. In August 1995, a federal judge
ruled the measure unconstitutional because “with state-sanctioned and
physician-assisted death at issue, some ‘good results’ cannot outweigh other
lives lost due to unconstitutional errors and abuses” (“Judge Strikes Down
Oregon’s Suicide Law,” A15).

Another counter-argument against euthanasia
is that it can easily become one of the methods of committing murder, as well
as lead to abuse of official positions, bribery of medical personnel,
deliberate harm, etc. It is extremely difficult to understand when a patient
really wants to die. Stress, prolonged depression, social pressure or threats –
all this can cause a petition for permission to the procedure. Although, there
are some cases of miracle healing of the terminally ill patients. Medicine
knows hundreds of cases when a doomed, seemingly patient, suddenly got up on
his feet after a severe form of cancer or returned after a 20-year coma: health
returned when no one had any hopes.

In addition, the state should do
everything to meet its needs, including the citizen’s desire to end his life’s
path. Euthanasia is the highest degree of humanity. It allows people to stop
once and for all unbearable suffering and physical pain, which is the basis of
the doctrine of humanism. States should realize this right at the legislative
level not for all citizens, but only for those who really want to ease their
anguish. Also, do not miss the other side of the question, which can easily
demonstrate whether euthanasia is needed. Countries that have abandoned this
procedure completely can be understood. However, in 40% of cases, the clinical
death of the patient comes as a result of decisions made by the doctor about
the disconnection of life support systems, the cessation of medication and
other treatment. That is, in fact, doctors in such countries risk not only
their own career, but also freedom. As we see, euthanasia is a complex phenomenon,
which must be considered from different angles, studying all aspects of the
problematics. Our natural sympathy for those who suffer, and the
benevolent desire to relieve that suffering, are both intuitively powerful and
seem almost the essence of mercy. However, we must remember that compassion,
like all feelings, must be regulated and constrained by reason and the demands
of justice. This is why it is so important to define our terms, because that
allows us to reason clearly in the face of strong passions. Once we have
clearly defined both plain suicide and doctor-assisted suicide as examples of
intentional killing, we can see that the moral analysis of each turns entirely
on the question of justification and moral innocence. What makes murder wrong
is not just that it is intentional killing, but that the victim is morally
innocent. We are now in a position to see that the same applies to both kinds
of suicide. The realities of extreme suffering are horrendous to contemplate,
and perhaps none of us are really prepared to grapple with such suffering in
ourselves or our loved ones. But living a life of moral integrity is often
difficult, forcing us to confront unpleasant alternatives. It might seem that
mercy requires us to put people out of their suffering no matter the cost, and
the refusal to do so might seem a kind of moral squeamishness. In fact, that is
the very essence of morality, no matter how much we sympathize with those who
suffer. In the end, the moral prohibition on suicide is simply an expression of
the age-old truth that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human
being. If we cannot all agree about that essential truth, then there is little
hope left for us to draw reasoned conclusions about morality and to act on

Euthanasia is definitely a multifaceted problem that cannot
be viewed from one point of view. That is why its legalization is still
resonating, provoking a lot of discussions, convictions and criticism. Of
course, on the one hand, one can always agree with the assertion that a
person’s desire is a supreme law, that people themselves have the right to
dispose of their own lives, despite the prejudices of society. However, there
are a number of problems that need to be considered. This is a huge risk to get
under investigation, which can lead to unpleasant consequences, including
imprisonment. In general, there is quite a legitimate question: is it worth
talking about the legalization of euthanasia in many countries, when the moral
principles of society are so unstable. So what is euthanasia? Perhaps today, as
long as an active discussion of this issue continues, it is impossible to find
the only true answer. Some people consider euthanasia as a “good
death”, which gives relief from suffering. I believe that
the legalization of euthanasia would be a good thing for America. An
individual’s right to determine the time and manner of their death is more
important than keeping a suffering person alive for the sake of preserving life.
I understand that the legalization of euthanasia will most likely lead to an
excuse for many people who are not terminally to end their own lives. But I do
believe that an evaluation by a mental health professional for those suspected
to have clinical depression or mental incompetence can help prevent most of
this. There are many good points and bad points to the legalization of assisted
suicide like any controversial issue. I understand it to be a good thing though
if a person truly is suffering and has no hopeful prospects for the future.