Need a perfect paper? Place your first order and save 5% with this code:   SAVE5NOW

Why Euthanasia Should Not Be Allowed


Euthanasia, or what came to be known as mercy killing, is the cause of death to a patient. The doctor instigates this process by administering drugs or the disconnection of a patient from a life-supporting machine. It is a topic that has raised so many concerns amongst individuals from all categories and up-to-date, it remains a critical topic that attracts a lot of time, people debating on whether it should happen or not. Euthanasia is not good and cannot be justified on many people’s grounds and may want to be put across. Others would like to believe that euthanasia can be allowed in some situations but not in others. Still, for the avoidance of the possibility of people misusing the availability of options, euthanasia remains a morally unjustifiable action.

One of the reasons euthanasia is not good is that it weakens the respect for the sanctity of life that society accords. Everyone thinks positive about human life, and that is why upon conception, many people would not support abortion, for, at that point, energy is believed to have started. As such, once someone has been born and brought up, there is no reason to imagine that their life can be terminated for whatever reason. In any case, if euthanasia is allowed to happen anyhow and any time a physician or a client feels like it, the sanctity of life would be lost. One should be allowed to undergo a natural death, which cannot be associated with anyone’s efforts. It can be considered robust and convincing because it supports everyone’s thoughts concerning life and that it is straightforward to convince someone that they should not cause death to anyone. However, an opposing individual would counter the argument by indicating that in some situations, like when one suffers from a terminal illness, their life loses meaning since they are in pain and probably causing a lot of financial distress to their family members, which could be considered unnecessary.

Another reason euthanasia is an inadmissible procedure is that the person considered terminally ill or basically in need of assisted suicide may not be optimistic about the idea. In some situations, if the patient is critically sick, they may not be in a position to air their views concerning the possibility of administering physician aided suicide. In such a case, if euthanasia is administered, those that did it would be held accountable for the death of the patient (“BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: anti-euthanasia arguments,” 2022). Even if the patient would not be there physically to fight for their violated rights, the action remains wrong to the patient and God, who is the giver of life. The point is convincingly appropriate in that if anything that affects one’s quality of life is to be administered, their consent needs to be sought. If they are not able to voice their thought, it would only be appropriate if they accorded the opportunity to recover from giving their views or dying a natural death. However, the idea can be challenged on the ground that if the patient is not in a position to voice their thoughts, a close family member or anyone that can be considered the next of kin can help in reaching an agreeable point on behalf of the patient.

On the same note, euthanasia can be considered inadmissible for the action helping violate other people’s rights like family members, not just those of the client or rather the patient. To substantiate the point, the client could be optimistic about the administration of euthanasia, but the family members do not support the idea. In such a case, the physician helps the patient commit suicide, and the rights of the family members get violated. It should first be understood that a human being identifies and belongs to people, and so is their life (“BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: anti-euthanasia arguments,” 2022). As such, the people’s rights need to be protected by harkening their voice. The grief they would have to go through probably may not be something they can bare for some reason, and thus if they are wailing to continue taking care of their loved one until a natural death claims their life, they need to be accorded the opportunity to stay with their patient until the last breath. The point is specifically vital in consideration of the fact that the family members consider the life of a loved one dear and would always want to show love and care since they would be left to be haunted if they allow an unnatural death to be administered on them. However, that can be quashed by an argument that one’s opinion or wish over their life cannot be challenged by anyone else. In such a case thus, a patient’s desire for euthanasia would be granted peacefully.

More to the above, there is the evident reason why euthanasia needs to be an option in healthcare provision, and that is the fact that with good healthcare, one would not be tempted to request physician-aided suicide. The above point seeks to explain that if a hospital has excellent and reliable healthcare infrastructure and qualified medics, they would not consider euthanasia as an option (“BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: anti-euthanasia arguments,” 2022). Instead, they would remain committed to helping the patient keep on improving until they get back to total health or even end up meeting their naturally expected death. The above argument can be supported by the idea that many people who end up requesting euthanasia are always triggered by the desperation caused by them perceiving no help for them to get back to total health. The doctors would thus be asked to improve their healthcare as it would significantly impact the patient’s hope for life even after medication. The point is specifically justifiable by arguing that the doctors are the source of hope for the patients and family members. It is their responsibility to make sure that they offer all that is necessary for the patient to convince them that there is hope. That would automatically rule out the option of euthanasia. However, the argument can be challenged by the thought that doctors always do their best, and however much the efforts, some situations could prove irreversible and warrant administering euthanasia.

Additionally, unlike all the other health-related regulations, it would be challenging to regulate euthanasia. The initiation of a legal process to establish laws that would regulate euthanasia would be the most challenging task. It would undermine the rules that discourage taking one’s life intentionally or unintentionally. When the law states that one should not kill or commit murder, it simply implies that one cannot justify having taken someone’s life (“BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: anti-euthanasia arguments,” 2022). Since euthanasia would be prompting doctors to provide an explanation and a justification why they had to administer it to a patient, the provision would have provided an opportunity for doctors to be used to commit some assassinations to justify that the patient was terminally ill or for some reason physician aided suicide was the only option. In such a case, it would be challenging to proceed with a chance of administered euthanasia when the victim is not able to give their side of the story while the one who is present could use the law to defend themselves. It is a situation that cannot be regulated by the law and remains an inadmissible procedure. The above point of view is strong in that any regulations seeking to dictate some circumstances under which euthanasia can be administered would always result in conflict with the basic rules of protecting the lives of human beings, and thus the only way to contain this situation would be disallowing any form of taking the life of an individual. However, it can be challenged by indicating that since it is an operation within the healthcare systems, there need to be laws regulating the procedure so that those that would wish to have it can be justified and defended by the law.

Another reason that would justifiably discourage any attempts to have euthanasia allowed is that it would pave the way for involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is where the doctor administers the aided suicide contrary to the patient’s will or simply when the patient has not requested, or their family members have not seen it wise to recommend that. The underlying thought is that when doctors are allowed to administer euthanasia, maybe if the patient is terminally ill or feels like they should get it, it would make it easy for the doctor to do it for other reasons other than the ones highlighted. For instance, family members would probably see no need for the patient living for a logic well known to them and talk to the doctor to administer the aided suicide (“BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: anti-euthanasia arguments,” 2022). The result would be the initiated death of a patient contrary to their will, which would be very wrong and unjustifiable under whatever circumstance. The point is arguably essential and worth considering in that people live with differences, and their enemies can wish anyone death. Even in the families, many people live with disagreements that would lead them to commit murder. If one of the few that could be considered an adversary in a family falls sick, a warring member of the family could be tempted to collude with the doctors to them killed and claims that the killing was administered to help the client not to suffer unnecessarily for long. However, the point is weak and could be challenged by arguing that consent needs to be recorded either in writing and witnesses could be demanded to be present at the event of administering the process.

There is also the evident possibility of mounting too much pressure on the vulnerable individuals to seek physician-aided suicide since that would justify their evils. For instance, the elderly could be facing the danger of being killed under the provision of euthanasia by selfish families. That can be explained by the desire to have the elderly die so that the sons may inherit the property. They could also not be willing to spend on their parent’s medical healthcare and request that they be killed under the same provision. Doctors could also be pushed to the pressure of wanting to free up medical resources to afford other patients the same opportunity. Other patients who their family members have abandoned may also view euthanasia as the only option for them to avoid experiencing pain and, at the same time suffering psychologically. As illustrated above, such would be pretty unnecessary pressure that needs to be avoided by disallowing euthanasia under whatever circumstance. The above argument is justifiably strong in that it considers the psychological impact that the provision would have on the parties involved. Upon visualizing a possibility of ending suffering or availing the opportunity to receive the healthcare services to another patient, unnecessary pressure would be mounted on the parties, and that is unjustified (“BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: anti-euthanasia arguments,” 2022). However, the idea could be countered by an argument supporting the fact that any unsubstantiated decision to administer euthanasia would be punishable as that would be absolute misuse of the healthcare provisions.


The above discussion is a candid exploration of the concept of euthanasia and the reasons behind which euthanasia needs to be abolished entirely. It is indeed a process that should never be allowed, and that has been substantiated fully in the above arguments. The main idea that ensues from the discussion is that life is sacred and needs to be protected at whatever cost. Taking someone’s life should never be a subject for negotiation, and people, whether terminally sick or willing to be aided to commit suicide, they need to be allowed to meet their natural death. The idea of regulating it has proven not helpful as many people would think. That has been justified by the fact that law would be challengeable under the provisions of protecting the lives of individuals and hence invalid in the justification for euthanasia. Allowing euthanasia would provide many reasons for doctors or patients to opt to terminate their life unnecessarily, and that needs to be avoided by whatever means and at whatever costs.


BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: Anti-euthanasia arguments. (2022). Retrieved 20 February 2022, from


Don't have time to write this essay on your own?
Use our essay writing service and save your time. We guarantee high quality, on-time delivery and 100% confidentiality. All our papers are written from scratch according to your instructions and are plagiarism free.
Place an order

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Need a plagiarism free essay written by an educator?
Order it today

Popular Essay Topics