Should Euthanasia be legalized?

    Euthanasia is the termination of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering. In essence, euthanasia is completely acceptable. Death, as any fatalist will tell you, is an inevitable part of life. There are some countries that permit this legally. “While the practice has been legalized in countries like Belgium, Switzerland, America (Washington and Oregon) and the Netherlands on certain grounds after family consent, patients can be euthanasia.” If someone feels the overpowering urge to end their own suffering, it should be completely legal. Euthanasia should be legalized because of human morality, economic factor and people’s right.   
     
    First of all, human morality in case of a doctor’s function has changed over time. “In the past, the doctor was a person who besides being your friend treated the diseases. Now a doctor is a stranger who combats diseases, but he is not always your friend. What will never change is their constant struggle against death.” However, their job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient’s quality of life. Many times there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent a patient from dying if the patient has a terminal disease; all he can do is waiting for death to arrive. This waiting time can be very painful for both the patients and the people who surround them.
   
     Another reason to legalize euthanasia is economic factor. Many times we do not have enough money to pay for the needed medical care not knowing if the patient is going to get any better. In a way, we are just wasting time and money on a situation that won’t get better. If the patient wants euthanasia, why not do it if we cannot end the huge amount of money wasted on a treatment that won’t help. According to CTVNews, More than 26 per cent of those who did not have drug insurance reported not being able to afford to pay for their prescription drugs. That compares to only 6.8 per cent of those who did have drug insurance. Perhaps not surprisingly, having a low income increased the likelihood that patients hadn't taken a prescribed medication. Canadians with low incomes were 3.3 times more likely not to take their prescription drugs because they could not afford them. So people who has no hopes of survival, alive on a support system when our medical infrastructure is already under immense pressure.
   
    Lastly, a person should have the liberty to choose induced death if he is suffering from an incurable disease where even the best treatment doesn't improve his quality of life. Euthanasia should be a natural extension of patient's rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death.” Maintaining life support system against the patient's wish is considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy.” If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment, why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the anguish? Isn't the pain of waiting for death more traumatic?
   
     Just imagine yourself in a similar situation. Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.




References
Baack, E. (n.d.). Why Euthanasia Should Be Permitted. Advanced Composition for Non-Native Speakers of English. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from
http://eslbee.com/barbarad.htm


Maisie, M. (2012, January 23). Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. buzzle.com. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-euthanasia.html


Mulholland, A. (2012, January 16). One in 10 Canadians cannot afford prescription meds. CTVNews. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120116/prescription-mdication-costs-afford-120116/

Should capital Punishment be abolished?

“Capital punishment is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment and since ancient times it has been used for a wide variety of offences. Reform of the death penalty began in Europe by the 1750’s and was championed by academics the French philosopher and the English law reformers and Jeremy Bentham. Along with Quaker leaders and other social reformers, they defended life imprisonment as a more rational alternative.” By the 1850’s, Venezuela (1853) and Portugal (1867) were the first nations to abolish the death penalty altogether. In the United States, Michigan was the first state to abolish it for murder in 1847. Today, it is virtually abolished in all of Western Europe and most of Latin America. Britain effectively abolished capital punishment in 1965. But the USA, together with China, Japan and many Asian and Middle Eastern countries, plus some African states still retain the death penalty for certain crimes and impose it with varying frequency. Someone killed a person, he have to response for what did he do. The capital punishment should be executed, because of the incapacitation of the criminal, cost and deterrence.      
       
“Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it.” According Home Office figures show the rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. In addition, there were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. The crime rate is increase quickly in Britain after they canceled the death penalty; therefore the capital punishment should be executed.     
     
Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the government may very well better spend our resources on the old, the young and the sick, rather than on the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this, whilst true for America, “has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years.” If they use the money to help people who need help, this will be better. Therefore the capital punishment should not be prohibiting.     
       
It is hard to prove whether the death penalty deter, because in most retentions countries compared between the numbers of people actually executed per year and those sentenced to death is usually a very small part. However, seem that in those countries such as Singapore which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime. “This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty.  The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent.” According to the survey, in 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999. Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes. That improved the death penalty deter, so it is feasible.     
     
Imposition of capital punishment would not cause the violation of human rights. Instead it would protect the wider range of human-rights violations by protecting the lives of many innocents, use the money to help more people and decrease the crime rate.
Reference:
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html#Ali
http://ezinearticles.com/?Should-Capital-Punishment-Be-Abolished&id=329831