is euthanasia a form of mercy killing a crime why or why not essay
According to a survey done in respect to acceptance of euthanasia by the general public the results show a growing level of acceptance (Top News, 2011). The research was carried out in twelve Western European countries by first analyzing the European Value Surveys that had been done prior to the year 2000. From more than forty six thousand interviewees the average acceptance of euthanasia was only a mere twenty two percent. These results in comparison with previous data indicate that there is a growing support for euthanasia as well as individual rights to such matters. Overall in a number of western countries, there has been a notable increase in euthanasia acceptance as the study showed and it further proved that pressure is still building up for euthanasia to be legalized all over (Oxford, web).
In conclusion, it may be necessary for all voices to be heard before a hasty decision is made on whether to legalize euthanasia or not. Since each individual has a right of expression I think the best way to answer the question of whether euthanasia should be legal be subjected to free and fair voting and the outcome be upheld.
Euthanasia is not embraced by everyone, as some people tend to go against it on the grounds of religion and morality. 5 March 2019 2 February 2020
They argue that mercy killing is an unethical practice because killing a person – for whatsoever reason it is, cannot be justified. Argumentative Essay: Euthanasia Euthanasia is another term for mercy killing. This approach is generally applicable to individuals with intractable or terminal disease due to lethal or discontinuation of life support treatment. Should Euthanasia be Legalised This essay will explore several different and varied opinions about whether or not euthanasia should be legalised. Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing. Mercy Killing essays Imagine a body slowly and excruciatingly being broken down by an unseen and uncontrollable invader. Mercy Killing or Just Plain Killing: The Euthanasia Debate For as long as people have been around, we have been dying. Euthanasia involves terminating the life of patients to relieve pain and suffering; which became intolerable.
3.5. Some argue that there are important moral differences between allowing something to happen and doing something or because killing someone and letting them die are profoundly different, and so passive and active euthanasia should be judged differently. But consider this case:
 For tragic reflections that letting someone die can be worse than killing them, see Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times, July 12, 2017.
In general, the medical exception accepts that doctors are allowed to do things which are for others forbidden, as long as there is a substantive medical reason. Medical treatment falls outside criminal law. That means things done by doctors are very serious crimes for others. This exception helps doctors as well as patients. For example, a doctor fearing prosecution by his patient would not be a contribution either to medicine or patients. On the other hand, this concept also has disadvantages. Doctors’ relief of liability for their acts might tend away from a proper responsibility towards patients, even though medical negligence or error is very difficult to prove.
One of the characteristics of Common Law countries is the use of precedent. For example, in Great Britain they look at precedent from previous rulings to know what the law is and how to apply it. The whole responsibility lies upon a judge, who may create the precedent. This is the reason why the argument of ‘slippery slope’ is one of the biggest fears in Great Britain. The legislation is very strict towards a problematic of opening ‘flood gates’. That is, thus far, the reason why euthanasia and assisted suicide has not been legalized in Great Britain. They are very careful in choosing their laws and, as far as they remain unable to find sufficient definitions in the question of euthanasia, there won’t be any possibility of legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.
Characteristic of this law is that legislator in the title as well as in the text, uses a term euthanasia, which is defined as intentionally taking the life of another person upon his request. The definition, as a term, from one side, is taken from the Dutch law and theory; while on the other hand, the current Dutch law does use neither the term nor the definition. At this point, it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that the Belgian euthanasia law does not specifically regulate assisted suicide, and the reason for that can be found in the fact that it has never been a social need to regulate assisted suicide as a separate crime, and the difference between it and mercy killing is minimal. Therefore, regulation of assisted suicide in this law was superfluous — such as excessive mention that physicians has to take this procedure with due care and attention (40).
Euthanasia is last sanctuary for patients, because there are no other alternative;