In summary, euthanasia should not be legalized, as it would contribute to creating many social problems. Human life is sacred to many cultural societies around the world. Therefore, it should be treated as such. Legalizing the use of euthanasia will only serve to devalue human life and render it worthless. It could also lead people to fake a disease in order to receive euthanasia. The Church is against it because only God has the right to take his life and give it. Euthanasia, if legalized, will give man the power to usurp the duties of God, which is considered unacceptable in many religions. As stated in the arguments above, it is important that euthanasia remains illegal by all means. Traditional codes of medical ethics have never sanctioned euthanasia, even upon compassionate demand. The Hippocratic Oath states: “I will not give lethal medicine to anyone if asked, nor will I offer such advice.” The International Code of Medical Ethics,[5] originally adopted by the World Medical Association in 1949 in response to the Nazi Holocaust, states: “A physician shall always take into account the obligation to preserve human life from the moment of conception until death.” In its 1992 Marbella Declaration, the World Medical Association[6] confirmed that assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. When a physician intentionally and intentionally allows a person to end their life, they are acting unethically. Euthanasia is a Greek word composed of two words.

“Eu means good and thanatos means death” (“Definition of Euthanasia” 1). It can therefore be freely translated as a good death. In the modern context, it is the practice of ending the life of an individual whose life is considered unbearable. To ensure pain relief, this process is carried out in such a way that patients are exposed to pain as little as possible. This includes means such as lethal injections, withdrawal of the patient from the maintenance of vital functions or overdose of the patient. Euthanasia can also be described as mercy killing or assisted suicide of the patient by medical staff or family. Many understand euthanasia as an act of a doctor injecting a patient with a deadly beverage to kill, to stop immense pain. For years, euthanasia has been a controversial issue in most countries and households.

For this reason, this paper will focus on the pros and cons of clemency killings. One can never be sure of the motives of those who push a patient to undergo euthanasia. The man is known to be unscrupulous when he or she is looking for something that could benefit him/her. To benefit from it, the patient`s relatives can try to convince him to make a decision that is favorable to them. Relatives can keep an eye on the patient`s property by wanting to inherit it when they die. It will therefore be difficult to determine what the genuine motives are when they propose euthanasia for their loved ones (Maisie 1). The legalization of euthanasia will help prevent an increase in the rate of people who decide to end their lives after deciding that they cannot bear the physical pain caused by their illness. This will ensure that a professional performs euthanasia and that the patient experiences minimal pain after choosing this method to end their life. This is the case when the patient`s quality of life has become difficult and uncomfortable due to excessive physical or emotional pain (Pellegrino 3118). Calls for voluntary euthanasia have been encouraged either by physicians` failure to provide adequate symptom control or by their insistence on inappropriate and disruptive interventions that do not prolong life or improve its quality.

This has naturally created a distrust of doctors among patients who feel neglected or exploited. The natural response is to try to make physicians more accountable. The law is a very powerful educator of public consciousness. When a practice is legal, accepted and widespread in society, people cease to have strong feelings about it. It was in Nazi Germany that this was particularly evident. Many of those who participated in the euthanasia program were doctors who were initially motivated by compassion for their victims. Their conscience and that of the society that allowed them to do what they did were stunned. The testimony of Karl Brandt, the doctor responsible for coordinating the German euthanasia program, in Nuremberg is a frightening reminder of how consciousness can gradually change: “My underlying motive was the desire to help people who couldn`t help themselves. Such considerations should not be regarded as inhumane.

Nor did I find it unethical or immoral in any way. I am convinced that if Hippocrates were alive today, he would change the wording of his oath. in which a doctor is forbidden to administer poison to a sick person, even on request. I have a clear conscience of the role I played in this matter. I am fully aware that when I said yes to euthanasia, I did so with the utmost conviction, just as I am convinced today that it is right. [4] It is never clear that a patient really wants to die. Everyone fears death, and as such, it cannot be said that death is the best option for the physical suffering and pain they experience. A person should only consider euthanasia as an option if they really want to and understand their condition in such a way that nothing can be done for them and the pain is too much for them or the pain cannot be managed (Darren 1). I have already alluded to the Nazi Holocaust. Little is known that what ended in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Belsen and Treblinka in the 1940s had much more modest beginnings in the 1930s: in nursing homes, geriatric institutions and psychiatric clinics throughout Germany. Leo Alexander,[11] a psychiatrist who worked with the Office of the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at Nuremberg, described the trial in the New England Medical Journal in July 1949: “At first, it was only a subtle change in the fundamental attitude of doctors. It started with the euthanasia movement`s fundamental attitude that there is a life not worth living.

This attitude in its early days affected only the seriously and chronically ill.