Misleading as it might be, there is only one true definition for it. For that would be a painless killing to relieve suffering: the act or practice of killing somebody who has an incurable illness or injury, or of assisting that person to die. So in other words it is a down version it would be an easy or happy death from the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition meaning disease, as by lethal injection or the withholding of extraordinary medical treatment. What I am talking about is Euthanasia or a slang word for it is “Mercy Killing”
There are many different sides that can be taken with this topic and there are so many different opinions based on a person’s religion. Also the legality of what is set in place to say “Yes, this is legally alright to have a mercy killing” or on the other hand does the law say “No, it’s not okay to have this practice.” What you might find when you look into this topic of “is it legal” is there are always loopholes in the law. There is almost always a way around or through something. The different opinion and choice you would probably have if you were actually in the predicament of having to make that final decision. There are many different pros and cons of this topic and I’m going to walk through a few of them.
The first one is “the right to die” on this topic the pro is talking about how terminally ill patients on life support have the right to medical assistance in quickening death. Denying terminally ill patients not on life support medical assistance in hastening death violates the “equal protection clause” of the fourteenth amendment. If it’s in the constitution how is it that it could be a good thing? A con of this is our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
A second subject matter with euthanasia is the “Patient Suffering at End-of-Life”. Looking at the pro argument of this it should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue living their life as it is to take a life without consent. On that topic, The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, in a May 1994 report titled "When Death Is Sought Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context," wrote: "Some patients decide to stop or withhold life-sustaining treatment because they perceive life as a burden and wish to die. In these cases, assisted suicide or euthanasia would end the patient's life and suffering more quickly and effectively than withdrawing or withholding treatment."A con of this would be laws against euthanasia and assisted suicides that are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from corrupt doctors and others. They are not and never have been intended to make anyone suffer. There are many other arguments including that the death is not an instant death and can take hours for it to finalize. It’s not pretty to watch someone who was already in enough trouble lay there with irregular breathing for hours on end. This topic of the patient is suffering at the end of their life could really get some people in a rant and upset.
The next hot topic is the “Slippery Slope to Legalize Murder.” The meaning of that is that if the act of voluntary euthanasia happened to become a legal action, then the likelihood that not before long that the act of involuntary euthanasia would start taking place. What that is saying is if we allow what some think is a relatively harmless action, then we might start a trend of something that we see today as unthinkable, becoming acceptable to the general public. The pro of this matter is that we need the evidence to show us that this is not going to happen later if it is made legal to do. That it is not going to turn into an involuntary action and is not going to turn into a mess. A con of this is if you get