Euthanasia, defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, is one of the most controversial topics in today's society, as it has become increasingly more common in countries across the world. As the progression of medicine and all types of care is increasingly becoming more advanced, there are many more ways to deal with patients that are in endless pain. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it would cause many problems in society such as a "will to die" and hurt the family and friends of people whom chose this path. It would also cause large moral issues for the people that are involved in giving the medicine and things to kill the person requesting this care. Although there are strong stances both for and against the legalization of euthanasia, it would be a negative benefit to society, as it would violate the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors, and begin to de-value the respect for human life as a whole. 

In "The Impact of Euthanasia on Society" the informative website discusses how medical research would be negatively affected by the legalization of euthanasia. This website also discusses the ways that doctors and patient's relationships would be strained in the event that euthanasia was an option. If a patient believes that the doctor will eventually just give up and give the option, they may not feel as supported. There is also a great fear that the "right to die" may change into a duty to die or a duty to kill for doctors. In "The Impact of Euthanasia on Society", Dr Saunders states, "Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, careers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia." This quote is an example of how euthanasia may de-value the respect for human life, as humans who grow old may begin to be seen as a burden to everyone, most people will choose euthanasia to not bother others with their care anymore. It may also turn the elderly, mentally ill, or incurable pain patients to be seen as ways to free-up money in society if they are no longer there. As well as causing moral issues, it is extremely hard as well to regulate whether or not voluntary euthanasia may become involuntary. For example, "in 1990 a Dutch Government study found that over 1,000 people had been killed without their consent. In 1995 the number was 900" (Impact of Euthanasia ... ). This statistic shows that a large portion of people whom were killed, did not choose this, but were too ill to be able to decide for themselves. This becomes very hard to regulate when the patients are unable to communicate, because it will cause the communication between patient's families and doctors to be strained if the doctor knows they can perform the task without consent. While euthanasia is being discussed in other countries, this is one of the major problems, trying to decide how to regulate who will make these decisions. 

There is supporting evidence that the author believes compassion will be altered in these situations, causing doctors, family members and friends to feel guilt after performing this task. This way of life-ending care may also be due to society become brutalized in the recent years. Society has become much less sensitive to that of death, as it is currently seen everywhere in society, and therefore this topic is being discussed much less lightly in today's standards. As the Lancet article states, "Prof. Richmond points out, because of the cases where people have been executed and later exonerated (been found innocent of the crime), doctors also make mistakes in diagnosing patients" (Lancet 4). This is evidence that as society becomes less worried about how many people die, their view of this may be skewed. If patients are misdiagnosed, and there are not strict laws in place once euthanasia is legalized, if at all, then many people could die for unnecessary reasons as well. Society has become almost immune to the harsh reality of so many deaths occurring, and the Lancet author believes that there should not be another thing added to increase the number of people who die for unnecessary reasons. 

The article "Euthanasia would hurt doctors and society" discusses not only the impact this may have on people at an individual level, but how it may harm or benefit the government and society as a whole. This author believes that legalizing this care would de-value the respect for human life. It is important to understand that health care and hospitals support values of society as a whole to provide care and safety for patients. Euthanasia takes away the caring aspect of medicine, and burden doctors and nurses, and replaces it with teaching an entirely new process of how one may need to kill a patient. This also goes against the Hippocratic Oath that doctors must take. The Hippocratic Oath, which is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. Its original function was to require a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Basically the oath is promise that the doctor will do no harm on purpose, and always try to heal patients to the best of their ability. The oath is taken very seriously in the world of medicine and many doctors believe that this oath is the main reason they should not be allowed to legalize euthanasia, because it goes against everything they had originally been taught in medicine school. Another way that euthanasia may change doctors is that they will need to learn different things in school like how to deal with the burden of intentionally killing someone. This is a burden that should not be put on any human, and may cause several problems in the minds and lives of doctors who are trying to be successful and help heal people in need. This author even goes as far to say that physicians should not need to be responsible for this type of life-ending care. This author, Margaret Somerville, has extensively researched euthanasia and its impact on society, as well as ethics of other types of care. 

In the article written by the Lancet, in regards to "the care of terminally ill patients and oncology patients, while both are experiencing pain, oncology patients are unlikely to desire these interventions while patients with depression are more likely to request assistance in committing suicide. Patients who request such an intervention should be evaluated and, where appropriate, treated for depression before euthanasia can be discussed seriously". This is the thought while discussing the legalization of euthanasia in America. This study was taken from oncology patients, doctors, and the general public, to see their views on the issue. Oncology patients and the public found euthanasia to be much more acceptable than oncologists did. In fact, in a majority of the study, oncologists found euthanasia and physicians assisted suicide to be unacceptable, even when the patients had constant and unremitting pain (Lancet 1). 

One largely discussed point is the way that euthanasia will be regulated if it is legalized in most countries. While it may causes issues regarding voluntary and non-voluntary, it can also cause problems when discussing depression and who will be allowed to use euthanasia, in what state of mind, and who is to determine that criteria. If patients who are not experiencing unremitting pain, or experiencing some type of illness such as Alzheimer's or cancer, there is no real reason for them to need euthanasia, but who is to regulate that in the laws. If this becomes legalized this will make depression and suicide higher rates of mortality because they have access to life-ending ways much easier. There is no specific way to regulate what type of pain is enough to have someone end their own life, and there is also no person in the world who is qualified enough to make that decision, which will become a debate if it is legalized in most countries. 

When discussing the opposition, it is important to note that there are some countries where euthanasia is legal, but there are often problems associated. For example, the author states that in the first and second paragraph of Nitschke's article, the author introduces the problem that will begin to occur about how most people can support euthanasia, until the harder cases are presented, such as the not-so-terminally ill patients. The author uses evidence such as that Western countries support normal euthanasia, but when polled of other types of life ending care there was not as much support. The author stated that people will often support euthanasia until it is presented about mentally-ill patients, or children. Another largely discussed issue in the euthanasia debate is the Alzheimer's patients. Some children do develop terminally ill diseases while they are young, and therefore euthanasia can be see as an option, but it becomes problematic when children do not know the seriousness of the matter, and the "sense of their own mortality" (Nitschke 3). 

Another issues that occurs when discussing the opposition supporting euthanasia, is that many people who support the idea, have never had to deal with a case in which it may be relevant. Belgium is trying to pass a law in which euthanasia wishes can be placed in a will for elderly people. This can become problematic if someone's wishes may change, as well as when to distribute the life-ending care. When a patient becomes unable to speak they cannot make decisions for themselves, thus ending in non-voluntary euthanasia ("conducted when the explicit consent of the individual concerned is unavailable, such as when the person is in a persistent vegetative state, or in the case of young children"). Another problem that could also arise is that families then do not have a large influence over the decisions made for their family member. 

In conclusion, euthanasia would be a widely negative benefit to society for a multitude of ways. Although it is legalized in some ways, in the Netherlands and other countries, there are many negative attributes associated with the countries that have legalized this type of life ending care. As listed in many articles, talks, books, and more, euthanasia will change the course of how life is viewed, and certainly begin to de-humanized care for patients. Once euthanasia is legal, caring for patients will not be such an important aspect in a doctor's life if they know they can use euthanasia for a way out. It will also strain the relationship between doctor and patient and lose trust if a doctor recommends euthanasia to a patient instead of trying to help. When others contrast the situation by stating that euthanasia could help end pain and suffering, there is no statistical evidence to show when pain is too much for someone to handle, and no one person is able to determine that amount of pain level. The Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors is an incredible and very important document that doctors take pride in, and changing their type of work would change their view of life in general. Euthanasia will negatively benefit society by de-humanizing patients, doctors, and their families, as well as alter the way society views death in a more negative tone. (2122 words). 

