Posted on April 8, 2019
A topic that is very controversial today is assisted suicide. The name is exactly what it means. However, if we take that as our basis of our understanding and meaning of this term, then obviously we would think it’s morally inhumane. However, it isn’t. Rather, it provides a certain sense of relief that living ironically can’t do. Nevertheless, in doing this research essay, I came to realize that in an argument, both sides can be right. That sounds paradoxical, but it is very true. When we write a research paper, we tend to think that the side we’re in favor of is correct and the other side is totally wrong. That isn’t true, though, hence the existence of a counterclaim, which acknowledges the validity of the other side, but strengthens your own claim as well.
What surprised me the most can be seen as a point that hurts the legitimacy of my rationale, which is that euthanasia should be legal, but if you look at it deeply, is just one solvable imperfection of current laws of countries in favor of euthanasia. Belgium is one of few countries to allow this practice, and with lax laws, have created a disaster. According to the Washington Post, the country now allows children to possess the same decision-making power as adults in these situations, which is very extreme and radical. In a specific case, a child with cystic fibrosis was euthanized. Though this disease is incurable, current drugs and treatments allow for a good life for decades. Also, many incidents of assisted suicide go unreported, and for those that are, medical privacy prohibits the transparency needed to justify the morality of this issue, because names of patients and doctors are censored. Now, I’m not changing sides and saying that euthanasia is bad, instead, this should serve as a warning for if it is legalized, there should be a effective way to enforce it prevent it from being abused, and more should be done by the government, especially financially, to make this option a last resort.