Is Euthanasia Morally Acceptable?

In order to answer the above question is necessary to distinguish between different types of euthanasia, and euthanasia is voluntary, not involuntary and voluntary, which may be, in turn, active and passive.

I speak only of active voluntary euthanasia. In voluntary euthanasia is a subject on which rests the action that decides to die, asking to help you accomplish your desire. The active voluntary euthanasia is distinguished from passive because no one in the active component of direct action by an agent, whose effect is the inevitable death of the patient who asks, as in passive euthanasia, death is a direct consequence of a any action, but an omission, as when the doctor fails to administer the necessary treatment to preserve life.

In my view, active euthanasia is morally acceptable. Leave a dying patient with a fatal prognosis regardless of medical intervention is the same as speed up this process irreversible, applying euthanasia, since in both cases the result is the death of the subject, except that by accelerating this phenomenon is minimized physical and psychological suffering of the person, and it will save resources that could save the lives of others who have the possibility of reversing their prognosis.

If passive euthanasia is, as many think, morally acceptable, so is working because when we can prevent death, although we have not caused the condition that caused the death, we put in the position that our action will dictate the life or person's death. For example, as a physician who is responsible for the lives of patients and have to do everything that is humanly possible to preserve a mother who intentionally miss his obligation to feed their children, leaving them to die of hunger, can be prosecuted for the death of it. This example demonstrates the equivalence of the terms killing and letting die. If passive euthanasia amounts to letting die and active means to kill, then we can say that there are different and if one is acceptable, the other is too. Many times if we let a person die under the natural evolution of their organic condition, this will cause great suffering, while we practice euthanasia, a person will have a less painful death. If an animal is dying, we are attached to a living being, helping you to have a good death and I think that human beings also deserve it.

There are, however, argue that the guiding principle of evolution and organizer of our defenses and physiological reflexes, both conscious and unconscious is survival. In this perspective, euthanasia can be seen as a phenomenon against our nature. But if that were true, no one should be able to smoke or carry sports, or other things that we can approach death, because every day we were to take action against our nature, endangering our lives.

Another objection to performing euthanasia is that the decision is taken in this direction may correspond to a state of mind influenced by the passenger and emotional factors arising from the experience of suffering. However, the complexity of this issue, involving considerations of personal, legal and medical ethics requires a time of weight that has demonstrated the seriousness with which the decision is made.

We often think of euthanasia as a practice carried out in situations that are deemed not to be any hope of coming to change the state of the person and this is not right because you can not predict the course of a disease and the adaptive response of the body. But that is like saying that it is possible for a person to live two hundred years and the fact that it never happened does not invalidate this possibility. It will, however, that the hope of a miracle that we return to life is sufficient to allow all physical and psychological suffering for an indefinite period, without anything to do provide the actual occurrence of this miracle? I think this is asking too much.

We "play" with life, but we give it a higher value when we know we will die soon. In this essay, I defended the voluntary active euthanasia, but I'm 18 and I think I have a brilliant life ahead. My order is still too far away to think about it and never had direct contact with death. But is that when the end is near I will act according to my theoretical principles? Is it someone I were one day ask to end your life I'll know what should I do? If I help someone accomplish euthanasia will I be sure I did something right? I have no definitive answers to these questions. This shows that regardless of the arguments presented, the theme of this essay remains in some doubt.