
   Euthanasia is a very controversial topic in the US as well as the rest of the world. Euthanasia is and will continue to be defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, or in an irreversible coma. This practice is illegal in the majority of the countries in the world. Euthanasia, the process of assisted suicide, should stay illegal for a multitude of reasons. Euthanasia, by definition, is a form of homicide, which is a very serious offense. This combined with many other factors make euthanasia a very widely discussed topic in politics all around the world. With a lot of research, it is very evident that euthanasia should remain illegal. Additionally, the countries who have legalized euthanasia should rethink their thought process of legalizing this highly controversial issue around the world.

  The first issue to examine is the reason behind the legalization of this practice in certain countries. Although Australia outlawed euthanasia, it is still a prevalent issue throughout the country. Euthanasia is a crime in Australia, however many doctors still use this practice and are very rarely prosecuted  (Healey, 1). Many of the reasons for legalization of euthanasia is because there are many patients who are suffering and felt that this practice should be a personal choice. However, the main rebuttal for that is that many relatives would much rather not have to see their loved ones die by a doctor. This argument is central to many cases regarding euthanasia, however the doctors cannot violate their privacy policy with the patient (Emmanuel, 1).  All doctors have been in the past have had to be very trustworthy people due to this policy. Keeping all of their information about patients between the patient and doctors is very important to many people, and it has become very common for people to have a great relationship with doctors. With euthanasia staying illegal the privacy policy of doctors remains unchallenged and it helps individuals all around the world to continue to trust in doctors.

  This ongoing fight to keep euthanasia legal is most prevalent with cancer patients (Emmanuel, 2). With that being said, many people who have cancer are also on the other side of this argument. Likewise, many of the patients intend to beat cancer and have no thought of utilizing euthanasia whether it was available to them or not. Those who suffer from this disease would be less likely to continue to fight for their health if they had the option of doctor assisted suicide in their tough times. Euthanasia is a very slippery slope, as having it be legal would open up the approach of people who become undesirable and are ultimately forced to use euthanasia. The world has seen this first hand in Belgium after euthanasia was legalized, within ten years of euthanasia being legalized children who were born with serious health defects were inhumanely killed (Adams, 1). This is not the direction that any nation wants to go in, with euthanasia staying illegal this issue will never have to even be considered. When euthanasia is legalized in these countries, it often ends up in the unlawful killing of many people without their request (Adams, 3). The main reason for this is overpopulation, however this is inhumane and not a viable solution. When euthanasia is legal it ends up promoting homicides by doctors like never before. If euthanasia remains how it should be, these inhumane solutions will no longer be utilized.

   The population affected negatively by the legalization of euthanasia is largely doctors, as many of them don’t properly report physician assisted suicide (Adams, 2). It is very difficult for doctors to be monitored on the proper classification and utilization of euthanasia. With Euthanasia remaining illegal it eliminates all of this unneeded pressure on doctors to properly document when this practice is used, as well as the large margin of error. An alternative that is used in the United States is to give the patient the right to refuse medical treatment and refuse pain treatment at their request (Healey, 5). This is a very effective method because it leaves the choices in the patient’s control while not offering the easy way out of assisted suicide. Too many people would take this faulty option with euthanasia being legal, whereas eliminating this option would lead to many sick people fighting harder for their health and quality of life. Homicide, in any form, should not be viewed as a solution no matter the mindset behind it (Healey, 21). This point is a very substantial one in the sense that intentionally killing someone by definition is a homicide, and that is exactly what the legalization of euthanasia is forcing doctors to do. Having euthanasia be illegal worldwide would eliminate the legality of intentionally killing anyone, even if the person had given consent.

  While the argument for euthanasia claims to be centered around emphasizing the individual’s choice, it still confirms a secondary opinion that this patient is living a life not worth living. The doctor is providing this secondary confirmation merely by providing the script for the drug (Healey, 22). This logic is faulty because while the basis of the argument is that no person can decide whether another’s life is worthwhile, that is exactly what the doctor is asked to do when they make the judgement call that euthanasia is an appropriate path for said patient. This is a very controversial matter, as no one can truly make that decision and feel what another is feeling. Most doctors who are against euthanasia have not budged in their beliefs of not wanting to make that call and end a life. Doctors are the main group that has been against euthanasia since the origin of the issue (Warraich, 1). The Hippocratic oath is something that doctors take a lot of pride in and violating this oath would compromise the nobility of their profession. While many doctors are allowed to prescribe patients drugs to help ease the patient’s pain prior to or leading up to death, that is not comparable to giving a patient medicine inducing death far before one of natural causes would occur. The legalization of euthanasia would put many of the uninsured and lower class citizens’ risk at an all-time high, with such an easy way out many people may take advantage of euthanasia in order to ease the burden on their families (Warraich, 3). There are too many side effects and ramifications that would come as a result of legalizing euthanasia, therefore lawmakers everywhere must do their best to make sure this stays illegal.

   Many supporters of euthanasia believe that this can be monitored and overseen by the government safely (Adams, 1). However, in most of the countries in which euthanasia has been legalized there are a multitude of reports of the unlawful killing of innocent people. Many of the people killed have some sort of birth defect. This was first seen in Australia after they legalized euthanasia over a decade ago (Healey, 15). The government can attempt to contain assisted suicide, however there are far too many doctors in the many countries around the world to effectively monitor all of them. There have been many acts that have been passed around the world against assisted suicide, and the laws that have been passed advocating assisted suicide are regarding a patient who is in the last stages of his or her life and is truly naturally approaching death (Dans, 1). The legalization of euthanasia, even if specified only in certain cases, leaves too much up to judgement. This leads to inhumane killings by doctors who feel that, by law, they have the authority to make this call. There is a huge difference between this and a patient receiving such treatment when they are truly going to die any day. However, doctors still would prefer not to have the pressure to pull the trigger on prescribing the patient medication to kill themselves.  

The legalization of euthanasia would put vulnerable people severely at risk. People who are prone to depression and other mental illnesses are much more likely to utilize euthanasia than anyone else. Protecting these lives is very important to society, which can be done through the abolishment of choices that may be triggering. Another argument for euthanasia remaining illegal, is that with modern medical advancements, patients rarely experience severe pain when dying (Debate, 3). Many are put to a peaceful death with medicine, meaning that a natural death is often just as seamless as a manufactured death caused by taking a pill. When patients receive very good care in hospitals, physical and physiological, they rarely want to end their lives. Another group of people negatively affected by this option is the elderly. Many elderly people may see this as an easier decision in times of illness, causing emotional distress for families and, in many cases, untimely deaths. Across the medical field, the elderly are often not treated with the same focus and ambition that younger people are, with their lives being regarded as a sort of lost cause. As a society, we should try to treat the elderly with compassion instead, considering how we might want to be treated in the ending stages of our lives. Keeping euthanasia illegal would protect these people, allowing them respect and comfort in the ends of their lives.

It is important to consider that as a society, we don’t have much to gain by the legalization of euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia it would open up a gate to legalizing a lot more controversial topics. It is not reasonable to legalize a practice that such a small portion of the population wants to implement (Richmond, 1). It truly would harm more people than it would help in the long run, which is supported by the experiences of nations that have tried to implement some sort of assisted suicide type of legislation. The ramifications of implementing such a law would cause a snowball effect with the negative side effects of the legalization. Another big problem with such a law is that it goes against almost all of the rules set for capital punishment in most states. This will overcomplicate the judiciary system, blurring the lines between right and wrong. This concept is further complicated by the high likelihood that this practice could not be properly regulated. Another negative effect is the multitude of working class citizens who work in the service sector helping the elderly, that would lose their jobs. All of the senior homes, and other organizations that thrive off of helping assist the elderly live would be greatly reduced with euthanasia becoming legal. This could lead to an increase in unemployment, making the legalization of euthanasia a catalyst for political issues. Another huge aspect of euthanasia is that it is the wrong decision for the majority of people who decide to use it (Richmond, 2). Truly no one who is stable should ever want to die unless they are already suffering a lot, which there is already a law for in almost all of the countries to put people to the most peaceful death. This is called the palliative care, and with euthanasia becoming legal the appeal for this practice would decline very rapidly. It is also often argued that giving doctors the authority to prescribe life ending medicine would be a dangerous amount of power to be bestowed on anyone. The doctors all over the world are very against euthanasia, and the fact that they are the main people who speak out against euthanasia truly should speak to all of the people around the world. The doctors that would have to prescribe the drug do not want to do that at all. Many doctors do not want to have to give that medication and undergo that pressure of handing someone pills that will send them to certain death. The field which contains experts on the subject adamantly refuses support of the practice. The people who would like to legalize euthanasia claim that there will be very strict guidelines as to the circumstances when doctors would be able to prescribe this, however as stated before there are truly just too many doctors and patients to keep everything under control (Richmond, 4).

With all of these reasons it is very evident the negative ramifications to our society that would result from the legalization of euthanasia greatly outweigh any alleged benefit. At the end of the day, there are just too many side effects and problems that will come from this legalization process. The judiciary process alone would take a very long time, and would distract from more prevalent social and political issues which are worth the time of the judicial system. Through the many reasons that have been stated above it is truly clear that euthanasia should indeed stay illegal where it still is. As well as, the nations who have legalized it should take a long, hard look at what the side effects of euthanasia truly are. The other side of this argument has not considered the side effects of this on both the long and short term, and how they affect society. Euthanasia is a very controversial topic, whatever the outcome of this debate is there will be people on either sides still fighting for the opposite of what happens, however if people truly look into the deeper roots of assisted suicide the side effects are remarkable. This should sway people’s opinions more towards having euthanasia continue to be illegal. Euthanasia as a whole is just too slippery of a slope to truly legalize everywhere, many places will end up abusing this power for the exact wrong reason that it would be legalized for. As a nation everyone needs to come together and fight against euthanasia for everyone that is currently in their family, as well as the generations that continue to keep coming from them. 
