Some thinkers cite the Hippocratic Oath as the reason medical professionals shouldn`t help with suicides. According to them, this basic principle of medicine clearly states that doctors should not harm their patients. However, the promise, created more than 2,000 years ago, does not reflect the intricacies of modern end-of-life care. Hippocrates` contemporaries were unable to prolong life, mainly because they lacked relevant knowledge and tools. Moreover, their sense of morality does not reflect many of the current views. Their views on women`s rights, slavery and many other issues are no longer common, and they should no longer see the responsibility of doctors. After all, there is no longer a single version of the Hippocratic Oath. In fact, many countries and even medical schools within a country use their own versions that reflect their values, allowing modern doctors to adapt the wording to express their views on euthanasia. Of course, people who are nearing the end of their lives are not monoliths and show a variety of opinions on the subject of assisted suicide. Some cite religious views to oppose this practice. For example, a survey by Sharp (2019) shows that those who believe in life after death are much less likely to have positive views about euthanasia. Nevertheless, these findings only mean that religious people themselves should not be subjected to euthanasia, not that it should not be an option for the general population. Health care professionals should consider spiritual beliefs when consulting with patients and their families.

However, the theological concerns of some people are not sufficient to impose a blanket ban on the practice. Controversial billboard of Exit International, an organization that campaigns for the legalization of euthanasia. This “slippery slope is real,” said James Mildred of Care (Christian Action Research and Education), who campaigns against assisted suicide. In a 2018 article in The Economist, Mildred cited “a steady increase in the number of people killed or driven to suicide by their doctors” in countries that have legalized assisted suicide. It is “only a matter of time” before the euthanasia criteria are expanded, he added. Despite its obvious benefits, the legalization of euthanasia is a complicated process that requires a great deal of care to implement. For example, opponents of the practice believe it can be used as a weapon to harm vulnerable groups. The history of health care is replete with examples of medical professionals abusing medical procedures. Just as many Indigenous and disabled women have been sterilized against their will, people of colour and other minorities can suffer from forced assisted suicide. However, this argument only underscores that euthanasia legislation must be implemented carefully with all possible tippings. After all, sterilization is a necessary procedure that many people need.

Similarly, assisted suicide should have the power to decide whether it is the right option to place in the patient`s hands. The concern that euthanasia laws may harm vulnerable populations is justified, but only emphasizes that the relevant legal framework should benefit people with illnesses. Proponents of euthanasia believe there is no reason why euthanasia cannot be controlled by proper regulation, but they acknowledge that some problems will persist. The arguments in favor of euthanasia can be divided into a few main categories: This makes it much easier to look at the issue of euthanasia from the perspective of someone who wants euthanasia. The two most common arguments in favor of legalizing IDA are respect for patient autonomy and relief of suffering. A third related argument is that AID is a safe medical practice that requires a doctor. Opponents of euthanasia may disagree, arguing that allowing euthanasia will greatly increase the risk of people wanting to live being killed. The danger of violating the right to life is so great that we should ban euthanasia, even if it means violating the right to die. The first two reasons are key points in arguments against euthanasia, but only if you accept that they are true.

In addition, laws must serve the people; If the people of a country decide that they want a right to euthanasia, the government should not be able to deny them. For example, Oregon passed a law allowing assisted suicide by popular vote. This shows that citizens agree on the issue and want to make informed decisions about their end-of-life care. On the other side of the spectrum, Khaleeli and Cocozza`s (2017) article chronicles people`s problematic experiences in the UK, where euthanasia is not yet legal. In this case, the laws of the land actively prevent its citizens from making decisions and perpetuating their suffering. Therefore, laws surrounding end-of-life care and assisted suicide should reflect the wishes of the public. In the United States, medical assistance in dying or euthanasia has always been carefully distinguished from euthanasia. Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, refers to the administration of a lethal drug to a patient suffering from incurable suffering.

It can be voluntary (the patient wishes) or involuntary. Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, but voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg and Canada. In the Netherlands, it is decriminalized. Secular opponents argue that all the rights we have are limited by our obligations. The decision to die from euthanasia will affect others – our family, friends and health professionals – and we will have to weigh the consequences for them (guilt, grief, anger) against our rights. First, consider the views of people who find themselves in the unfortunate position of wondering whether they should end their lives. Euthanasia is an easy choice, so it seems short-sighted to rely on the views of those who have never had to think about this issue. Chapple, Ziebland, McPherson and Herxheimer (2006) looked at research on the feelings of terminally ill people and conducted a qualitative study on this topic. Based on their results, patients cited reasons such as pain, humiliation, cognitive impairment and loss of control as reasons for choosing assisted suicide (Chapple et al., 2006). For them, the possibility of dying safely at a time of their choice in the circle of friends and family was preferable to indefinite suffering. Therefore, terminally ill patients, people for whom the issue of assisted suicide is of paramount importance, agree that euthanasia should be a legal practice. Ultimately, they fear, people are expected to commit euthanasia as soon as they become an unreasonable burden on society.