One topic that has attracted widespread varying opinions and controversy is euthanasia, a practice that is classified as a good death. By denoting euthanasia as good death, a comparison is made on the essence of staying alive and inducing death. In most cases, patients suffering from terminal conditions such are cancer lose the interest and desire to live through natural death may not be possible. Euthanasia, otherwise known as mercy death, is the process of voluntarily or involuntarily assisting a terminally ill patient to commit suicide. The development of this practice has been motivated by the need to eliminate intractable suffering in patients with chronic and terminal illnesses (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012).
However, the advancement and acceptance of the use of euthanasia in some countries especially in Europe have created a moral and ethical dilemma in the medical practice due to its direct contravention of the Hippocratic Oath, a binding statement that medical practitioners make before being allowed to practice. The argument that life is sacred and no argument can be provided to grant doctors to take it away in the name of euthanasia has continuously been used to oppose the process. However, some situations have created a dilemma in which the value of life is weighed against death, a situation that provides support for euthanasia. In this paper, I take the position that euthanasia cannot be morally justified as life is sacred and cannot be taken away at will through medical justification. However, the slippery slope and wedge arguments have been used by proponents to argue for the adoption of this practice in countries like the united states and the united kingdom (Juth, Lindblad, Lynöe, Sjöstrand & Helgesson, 2013).
Moral support or opposition to euthanasia must discern the two types of euthanasia that are currently adopted by medical practitioners in hospitals across the world.