Summary Voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because alternative treatments exist It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.
The key issue is the long-term consequences of a law change for public safety. This is an issue of social justice — protecting vulnerable people from pressure and abuse. These days no-one need die in pain. Death is not the right or best response to these issues.
When seriously ill patients receive good palliative care physical, psychological and spiritual carethey rarely want to end their lives. Good medical care aims to eliminate the pain, not kill the patient.
Will this still occur if the law is changed? EAS would be a cheaper option. The current law has a stern face, but a kind heart. However, the Court shows compassion in individual cases based on specific circumstances. Changing the law will not mean an end to such cases going to court as it could still be difficult to distinguish between an assisted suicide and a murder.
Many assume that changing the law will simply allow the very small number of high-profile cases to proceed without legal objection. Changing the law would create a legal situation in which the state licenses death in advance and sanctions the death of some of its citizens.
Legalising assisted suicide amounts to state-sanctioned suicide. Allowing voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide EAS opens the door for disabled, sick and elderly people to see themselves as a financial and emotional burden.
No safeguards can protect against this. Legalising euthanasia would put them further at risk, especially when there is increasing pressure on the health budget. We should not ask doctors, who have a duty of care, to intentionally kill their patients using lethal drugs.
Intentional killing is dangerous and opens the door to abuse. Legalising voluntary euthanasia paves the way for euthanasia without consent. There is no way of knowing whether a person followed all the legal requirements.
It is neither possible nor rational to limit legal assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia to particular groups of people or specific conditions. There would be the same erosion of boundaries here in New Zealand as has occurred overseas.
New Zealand abolished the death penalty partly because of the danger of executing even one innocent person. Euthanasia and the issue of pain.Some Reasons Why Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Should NOT be Legal Download a printable version here People on both sides of the debate care about suffering people and want to prevent intolerable suffering.
Twelve Reasons Why Euthanasia Should Not be Legalised. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Seven Reasons Why They Should Not Be Legalized. By Luke Gormally 1. The 'justification' of voluntary euthanasia involves rejection of a tenet fundamental to a just.
Home Arguments against euthanasia. Arguments against euthanasia. It is important to note that in the U.S states that have legalized assisted suicide, the rate of non-assisted suicide has increased.
Do not forget that for a citizen to kill another (for reasons of false compassion) opens a Pandora's box. You are at: Home» News» Issues» Euthanasia» Why assisted suicide should not be legalized In an era of concern over escalating medical costs, "unproductive" consumers of medical services are increasingly made to see themselves as .
You are at: Home» News» Issues» Euthanasia» Why assisted suicide should not be legalized In an era of concern over escalating medical costs, "unproductive" consumers of medical services are increasingly made to see themselves as drains on society and the economy.