To start with, euthanasia denies the basic right of a human for the appropriate treatment and life and therefore, weakens the respect for it. Regardless of the type of euthanasia, whether it is passive or active, its essence lies in performing action that leads to either letting one die or to killing a person rather than offering healthcare, providing medical and emotional support, of which patients are in need. (Ebrahimi, 2012) As a result, the sanctity and respect of human life becomes devaluated and human ethics – challenged as far as people no longer question the personal capacity to make decisions concerning patients’ lives.
Furthermore, the procedure of euthanasia should be regarded as a violation of duties of medical professionals, who are aimed at saving lives, not depriving of them. According to the International Code of Medical Ethics, doctors are expected to “always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.” ("Twelwe reasons why," 2015) Similarly, adhering to the Hippocratic Oath specialists promise not to give “deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel…” (Yin Au, 2010) Thereof, doctors are obliged to apply efforts to prolong the life of a patient possibly long rather than choosing the easier path – euthanasia. Taking it into consideration, the right of medical specialists to be engaged in this procedure remains doubtful.
In addition, it is obvious that the legalization of euthanasia can place pressure on terminally ill and the elderly to resort to it for the sake of not being a burden for others. Facing a deadly illness or entering particular age when the end of life seems to be approaching, a person may feel like being obliged to resort to euthanasia in order not to feel guilty for creating inconveniences for the family, even though being morally opposed to and, in fact, not wanting euthanasia. (Ebrahimi, 2012) By this, patients with similar diagnosis