Euthanasia

       ‘To die or to live that is the question’ this is a famous phrase from ‘Hamlet’ by Shakespeare. The situation is slightly different but it could also be applied on the matter of Euthanasia. Human being’s life should be a procedure of happiness and full of satisfaction. It is undeniable that there are no lives without any pains, however, in a situation of dying and if there is not any chance of overcoming and most importantly under the agreement, Euthanasia should be legalized because it is better for patients to end their lives with smile rather than suffering until their last day and this decision can help not only patients from agony but also their families in term of finances, stress and pain.

        To begin with, the Euthanasia matter is still being argued and people against euthanasia asserts that euthanasia violates human rights that no one should be killed. However, their assertion is contradictory. Because human beings are also have rights to pursue their happiness. Therefore, people in vital illness or vegetative status claim to die or made an agreement before, their requirements should be respected because it is their way of pursuing happiness. For example, there was a case in Asia that patient’s family sued hospital for undergone euthanasia on patient. However, hospital was announced innocent because it was patient’s decision and his will was reliable enough. This proves that euthanasia is one way of satisfying their lives. More extremely, we have no right to attack or blame who committed suicide on their own will. Thus, it is not family’s or others but owner themselves right to decide whether to live or not.

          Moreover, Euthanasia not only saves patient from unwanted agony but also helps families from financial problem. Countries against euthanasia are artificially prolonging patient’s life which is forcing patients to take medicine, operation and imposing high fees on care givers. This will end up bankrupting average care-givers after the patient’s death. Euthanasia can prevent people from those second pains. For example, Netherland’s rate of Euthanasia gradually increased since the first year of euthanasia in 2001. This phenomenon is due to Netherland’s well established procedure before undergoing euthanasia and people thought it was the real meaning of public welfare. As a result the public’s satisfaction and euthanasia supporters are increasing, this emphasizes that euthanasia is a policy which fulfills both patient’s and family’s satisfaction.

       Lastly, Euthanasia saves care-givers especially family from mental pain and stress. Mental pain and stress is something which automatically avoided by human instinct. These mental agonies can affect their entire life. If people cannot function properly because of this, it cannot be considered as a small loss. According to famous utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, he asserts that quantitative benefit is a true public benefit and this idea developed to public welfare. This also means that minority should abandon their benefit if it benefits majority. Bentham’s assertion can be applied on euthanasia as well. Since Euthanasia only be conducted under family and patient’s mutual agreement, doing euthanasia will not be as sad as watching them dying and because it helps other family members to maintain their rationalities so it doesn’t affect majority. .

          In a nutshell, by legalizing euthanasia it helps patients and their care-givers from financial, mental pain and stress and human right matters. In ancient Greece there was Epicurus school party, they pursued a mental state called ‘Ataraxia’ which means ‘mentally calm status without any pain’ which is very similar goal of euthanasia. As Ataraxia brought peace and cultural development in ancient Greece I am sure that euthanasia will bring positive outcomes as Ataraxia did.