Cases For Euthanasia
As is the case there is an equal as well as an opposite reaction to everything in life. There are several cases against euthanasia and it is just normal that there would be some sort of opposite reaction as well. Just like there are people who are absolutely against the concept and the practice of euthanasia, there are people who are also in support of it.
The concept of euthanasia or mercy killing is usually employed as a means of reviving the patient from his or her ongoing terminal sickness. The argument about euthanasia being legalized and not being legalized has been raging for a long while. The ones that stand for the cause of euthanasia argue and say that this particular procedure is more humane and is more individual. Honestly they feel that if a person is terminally ill and cannot be revived ever again, and then perhaps it is absolutely perfect for the medical personnel or the doctor to put him or her to eternal sleep. In case a person suffers and faces hardships everyday of his life then perhaps it is perfect if that person is freed from that unbearable bout of pain. These rights all stem from the constitutional right of privacy and the upholders of this procedure also staunchly believe in the concept of self determination instead of being just force fed by the norms of the society.
One of the most well known proponents of the theory that supports euthanasia, Wolhandler argues that the constitutional right of privacy as said in Griswold v. Connecticut and further extended in Roe v. Wade also is about euthanasia. This protects an individual from the state's purview that is if a person chooses active euthanasia or suicide as propelled by some outside assistance. Force is something that is null and void in case of euthanasia at least that's what the proponents of this theory claim.
The view about the support of euthanasia is also about a very peaceful accommodation and wishes to comprise of several beliefs. There is however a lot of arguments whether the Supreme Court would like to extend a particular right which isn't stated with a specific attitude as is stated in the constitution and cover up such practices. The courts seem to have lent a supportive hand to the concept of passive euthanasia. This is what presents the basis that is needed for a second argument. This is an argument that states that both active as well as passive differentiation of euthanasia as made by the courts are all void and cant be made. Such things in real life do not exist. In case such a distinction is proved to be wrong then the rights that allow passive euthanasia would also allow the active form of the procedure as well.
One of the arguments that support this procedure says that the decisions of the court concerning the interest of the state would absolutely make both the active as well as the passive differentiation absolutely irrelevant. There are a series of arguments put forward by the school of thought that supports the legalization of euthanasia.