essay is about Euthanasia,an act of willful killing to oneself, this will full killing is indirect relation situations



The word Euthanasia is itself a controversial term in regulating its access to people terminally ill, suffering from intense pain and prefer to leave this world to avoid the hard reality. Decisions of moral permission and considering unethical behaviour makes Euthanasia a topic of difficult discussion in bioethics. It is almost like a discussion of facing the world and hard reality irrespective of ethical presence (Alexander, 2017, p.58). All human beings eventually face a phase that might relate to one’s difficult time and then it is considered that people move into Euthanasia. However critics have pointed out when specific cases in relation to bioethics in which Euthanasia is considered controversial.

Present analysis of Euthanasia

In response to legislative laws it has been considered Euthanasia is sometimes acquiring a positive permission while sometimes it is a negative permission. Recently some Pro Euthanasia advocates argued that in spite of people’s autonomic choice and a power to self-determinate, there are competent choice of death in them ((Nathan, 2015, p.8). In most cases Euthanasia is considered and thought to be acts of people who are severely ill, suffering from terminal diseases and in unbelievable pain. However it is also related to be the last resort to people who are tired of living a fruitful life (Fletcher, 2015, p.46).

Recent stories have come out where none of these stereotypical thoughts or tagged concepts worked well with people taking to Euthanasia. Bioethics have also justified Euthanasia with isolation. When principles of bioethics including beneficence, non maleficence autonomy and justice create a solution or provide an indication to explain reasons of Euthanasia. I can critically suggest in this case that Euthanasia is almost considered as a solution in human beings performing it. As reflected by the principles of bioethics solution to Euthanasia cannot be stereotype with certain tagged or coated problems in human life (Nathan, 2015, p.7). In fact, I have also come across thoughts that suggest Euthanasia can also be related to killing oneself and letting die oneself. As studied from different resources bioethical principles have been crucial to understand both active and passive Euthanasia. Is there truly a distinguishing?

Permissible or non-permissible

In response to the studies made by different scholars Euthanasia is also related two people suffering from isolation. Now the question that bestows is whether it is permissible or non-permissible. In Sociological terms, isolation is this slow procedure to kill human being without harming the environment and affecting the legislative policies. Combating this an environmental Ambience of one's life, Euthanasia is often chosen as the best option to live a life beyond death.

When the question of permission or justification arises I can suggest that Euthanasia can both be supported and not supported as the principles of bioethics goes by, a person is logically allowed to create a rational decision for his life. In this scenario if a person is not suiting the means to live a life that is valuable and ethical one can choose Euthanasia. In consideration to this perspective cant sis principle of autonomy is practically useful. In fact summarization of Kant’s principal of respect includes that a person can never be acknowledged with inherent value or bestowed with invaluable and an ethical consideration of living the rationality lies in the fact whether that person is living a life with values or ethically destroying the life. In this response, I think Euthanasia can be an ethical consideration in one’s life. I can also suggest that consists moral philosophy states about the rightness or wrongness of actions that depends on a moral living Euthanasia is a similar concept that is mostly chosen by people when there is a lack of modern living. In fact, Kolberg's theory of moral development also includes stages that keeps an adult aware about the universal principles of ethics and values (Hann, 2016, p. 59). In reflection to Kolberg's is theory I can suggest that a person living on this earth tries to create a mutual benefit from living and existing. If living becomes a question existence probably has no meaning to it. That's when we talk about permissible and non-permissible justification on Euthanasia, there are truly questions that are dual in nature. These questions include whether a person needs to exist and leave even if there is lack in modern living. Discussing on this topic of permissible and non-permissible condition in Euthanasia, often there are dilemmas in respect to wilful death and non-wilful death. In this dilemma wilful death is still considered to be a taboo in this society where living is considered to be a social part. a constant existence of a person is considered to be a social activity in respect to many sociologists. In consideration to (Truog, 2017, p.74) Piaget, moral development there are few stages that talks about autonomous morality. In stage 3 an emphasized behaviour is expected since childhood. This expectation is again based on utilised utilitarian ethics duty based ethics contract based and character based (Francis, 2018, p.138). a constant force of living in this society even against one's will is considered to be a reason of Euthanasia.

In traditional consideration Euthanasia is often a horrible and torturous suffering that makes a person to die without realising the effects on society. In such considerations Euthanasia is often not permissible and is acted to get devoid of acquiring moral permission. As per medical authority Euthanasia something is becomes non permissible in cases when a doctor has to stop his treatment because of the patients is will do not live further. In such cases even if doctors try and think for a positive end the patient might will to stop there life being negative and suffering from some irresistible pain.

A dignified living in often missguided and miss represented in one’s life. In response to Kansas principle of ethical living and principles of bioethics I can relate to the meanings of the concepts highlighted in these two theories (Jaworska and Tannenbaum, 2018, p.92). When one talks about autonomy, I consider this to relate to life is well. In this case Euthanasia is appropriately justifiable and permissible from a person's life. Again if autonomy is considered in traditional conditions Euthanasia becomes non permissible and unethical. It has also be seen in different concepts balancing autonomy and beneficence becomes a difficult act of concern especially in respect to a human life (Rosemont, 2018, p.66). A physician who is acting to help a person perform Euthanasia can be guilty of committing a sin in respect to traditional views. Apart from this in few cases it is also considered to be a religious sin from the physician's end, you might think Euthanasia is not applicable for that particular person.

Considering such fact of concern it can be assimilated that Euthanasia is not permissible within any particular Health Care Unit (Habermas, 2018, p.68).

If Euthanasia is justified, why so?

In abrahamic religion life is considered to be the creation of God through Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have presented the argument of living that is considered to be depending not on one's will but on the will of God. Countries which legalized Euthanasia claims that when a person is not willing to suffer the social non acceptance of living has full right to be in peace through the desired decision of Euthanasia (Care, 2018, p.89). Although Euthanasia and its legalization has created a slippery slope effect, it has also created an understanding of free will in human being. Is sociology is related to this scenario and humans are considered to be the social animal, it is obvious that this social animal needs to be socially fit to continue living on this earth (King, 2018, p.52). I therefore state that before considering Euthanasia to be ethical or unethical the debate needs to end considering the condition of person wanting to go by Euthanasia.

In fact when I consider that Euthanasia is legal and can be permissible I also surrender that I am allowing likeness to murder oneself. As in accordance to me alleviating once distress is no act of supporting autonomy or beneficence. It is supporting nonmaleficence and justice for a person who is facing a crucial phase and a devastating scenario to live a life.

Ethical framework is

Permission and non-permission in relation to Euthanasia cannot be restricted to an individual’s thought. Infact, the perception considered in this scenario reflects a positive awareness that is set in the society. The society in order to meet social condition, considers death to be a setback in the society (Rosoff et al. 2018, p.42). Often it is also typically stereotyped under a worst impact in one's life. Thereby permission is not provided for Euthanasia however it is often not considered that whether the existence is making worse to the person who is living or to the society in which he is living. Tuition Centre don't ology has been a Theory that allows rights based upon duty based. This is an act that allows humans to choose once rightness and the power of autonomy in one's life. It is the rule of the society to allow humans live under and intra depending condition. it is always considered that a person is thought to leave an inherent life that is to live a life for and users benefit. in this reflection Immanuel Kant’s principle of autonomy justifies the claim that a human must really think of one's end (Baldassarri et al. 2018, p.242). I am not concluding over the fact that Euthanasia should be allowed in all conditions. However, I am relating to the fact that when a society understands the enough activity of a person or the person understands the enough activity in living his life, Euthanasia can be justifiable. While, narrating this entire argument over considering Euthanasia to be permissible it has hit my mind about the legal procedures that needs to be considered in this respect.

Legislative acts of concern

There are countries which have legalised loss for Euthanasia. In fact, countries like Netherlands Belgium Columbia Canada and India have supported Euthanasia there are many Western countries which is still proceeding with the legislative actions on making Euthanasia permissible. To comply to this situation, I can suggest that when a country is fighting for autonomy of self-freedom and acting to give humans free living right, Euthanasia is justifiable and ethical.  Beyond philosophical implication of man's right to live or death, social implications and moral thoughts, there is a need to legalize Euthanasia (Dombrowski, 2018, p. 44). In fact on certain situation it also protects sell food and human dignity that is a kind of assistance to equality human life. In this era where mankind is facing a loss through various brutality and various acts of suicide cases, there is an ample need of creating focus identity on human kind.  Euthanasia is practically a way to help humankind live a better life away from suffering and away from hurting anybody else's existence. It can also be considered a kind and Competent at to help the society live in peace when the other person living within the society cannot live in peace. moving apart from the philosophical and sociological principles Euthanasia if properly regulated can cause and hope within many human being wanting to move away from this life and start a new beginning after death. There are hundreds of people living in the society with terminal illness lack of care and social isolation (Gilleard, 2018, p. 29). In such cases if Euthanasia is accepted by themselves that can be a natural process and more peaceful for this particular individual fighting to live a daily life. In fact in this case it can also be considered that if a person wants to live a good life he can also want to end his life with a good death before a death that is more will full cannot be denied in humankind's existence. It has been sir weird that is Euthanasia does not shorten lifespan or harms the living in society it is actually enriching the society with more quality life and people who want to live a life with moral values and ethical considerations. It is not only saving many other people from suffering but also acting as a severe in different conditions. There are several HippocraticOath that supports Euthanasia. Some of these courts include, “most especially must I treat with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this away some responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and Awareness of my own frailty.”

Man is always considered to have a pathological fear over death and view this inevitable act as a suffering for himself. In fact, there is also a searched fear of death creating some mythical status in mind about death that is more terror and creates a sensation of horror in the mind of people living around him. Often it has been seen that this inevitable death criteria is MS interpreted as a punishment to all the sin committed in one's life.

In response to the society, mythological aspects of concern and philosophical views are allowing a creation of denial in human mind against death. Any legalized system all know that is abused for allowing permission to Euthanasia has no meaning to create a legal law for freedom to live. In this case if Euthanasia is considered to be non-permissible suicide can be your crying and a disinfectant in the society that is harming others. I consider that conflict arise in a society to create a goal of civilized society and state and ensured resolution over corn flakes without the infringement of harming fundamental human rights. It can be said that Euthanasia has been the choices of infringes affair and also is considered to be an act of constraint in reaching this particular goal. When a country tries to make its society valuable moral free from all indefinite identities and mythical misinterpretations in life, the country has to think over the freedom of human living on earth. In accordance to search focused assistance by legal creation there are requirement for improving and moving by the reflections of human being. If a person wants to die for some considerate and genuine reasons Euthanasia should be permissible and also be allowed within the society.


It can be concluded that, when such a topic of dilemma is chosen it has to be elucidated with a concrete reason for its justification. Euthanasia is an act of wilful killing to oneself. in fact this will full killing is indirect relation to the and considerate situations arising in one's life. It can be a terminal disease, are suffering from severe pain that can be both mental and physical, a sense of insecurity in the society, sense of isolation in the society and wanting to leave this world in peace before things deteriorate. It should also be considered that Euthanasia needs to be understood not only by sociologists, psychologists and researchers but also by legislative concerns who wants to create a better living in our country.

Leave a comment


Related :-