The moral and ethical concerns over euthanasia don't take into account the emotional strain of a long illness on those who watch a loved one suffer and die.
Euthanasia, often referred to as voluntary assisted suicide, is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or illness. It has been a sensitive topic of much religious, moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia for years. The term “euthanasia” is derived from Greek, literally meaning “good death” (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). Taken in its common usage however, euthanasia refers to the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually from an incurable or terminal condition.
There are recent debates arguing that Euthanasia should be legalised in some states of Australia and the Northern Territory is certainly at the forefront of the international debate over Euthanasia. On 25th May 1995, it became the first jurisdiction in the world to pass laws allowing a doctor to end the life of a terminally ill patient at the patient’s request. But it is said that this gives doctors too much power. I believe that Euthanasia should be legalised, because the patients are able to die in less pain and suffering as possible.
It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. 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.
Once voluntary euthanasia is legalised in a single country or state, people from neighbouring constituencies will take advantage of it. In this way no territory can act in isolation. The decisions we make have implications for other nations, not only for their...