Pages 6 (1506 words)
Recently Susie was diagnosed with a terminal condition. The prognosis is a grim one. As the disease progresses it will bring, pain, degeneration, and ultimately complete immobility before inevitable death.
Pain management is, simply, no longer working and, as hard as it is to admit, she is clearly slowly dying. You stop and ask yourself, “ Would she want her suffering to end? You ask yourself, “Would it be wrong to want her suffering to end?” The answer to these questions are comntroversial ones. If Susie were a pet then we would not question the honorable decision of ending her pain and suffering. We would consider it a humane thing to do. Yet, if Susie is a person then, for many people, the logic is the exact opposite. Even, if Susie, herself, desires that option, it may be considered in-humane to support such an option. To be humane is a part of being human, yet the same “humane” compassion that we would show our beloved pets, we do not feel compelled to show the same to our fellow human beings. Euthanasia, in its different forms, is not immoral, if it suits the morality of the person whose life, and death, is in question. In order to truly understand the contraversial issue that breeds so much ethical and moral debte it is impotant to review the full scope of the topic, from both sides, eliminate misconceptions, and, ideally, represent the morality of allowing individuals to choose not why they die, but the quality of that death, when death is inevitable. Firstly, euthanasia is not simply another word for suicide; it is, also, not another word for murder. ...