A template for non-religious-based discussions against euthanasia

This article is supplementary to Melissa Harintho, Nathaniel Bloodworth and E. Wesley Ely published in "Linacre Quarterly" and "Non-Religious Opposition Syutosium for Euthanasia" in February 2015. Here we will participate in the intellectual balance controversy of 2014, legalizing suicide assistance, complementing other non-belief debates and ideas, based on the discussion of opening and closing Daniel Sulmacy, for suicide and euthanasia We provided four unorthodox discussions to the doctor. (1) "to offend me"; (2) landslide; (3) "can relieve pain"; (4) physician integrity and patient trust

Abstract: This is four non-religious and reasonable arguments to the doctor to help suicide and euthanasia: (1) "to offend me", suicide depreciates people's lives; (2 Landslide, gradually infringes the restriction of euthanasia. (3) "Pain can be alleviated", palliative treatment and modern treatment can ease pain more and more (4) Doctor's integrity and patient trust, participation in suicide is doctor's integrity Can infringe on the doctor, damaging the patient's trust and heal without hurting

The most popular discussion of euthanasia is to ease the pain, to reduce the quality of life and to reduce the freedom of people who choose to die (the cause of euthanasia). Some of the more general arguments for euthanasia are that the doctor should not be involved in various religious beliefs, beliefs that lead to death, which compromise the concept of human life, euthanasia may be a means of curbing medical expenses There is euthanasia may be unwilling ("cause of euthanasia"). The Belgian age limit has changed recently, and euthanasia is legal for children who can not be cured at the moment after adults became legal in the last 12 years (Rodriguez). The Belgian Catholic Church believes that a decline in age restrictions is "pace too long" and requires the petition to be rejected (Rodriguez). However, most Belgian people support the bill (Rodriguez)

This article is supplementary to Melissa Harintho, Nathaniel Bloodworth and E. Wesley Ely published in "Linacre Quarterly" and "Non-Religious Opposition Syutosium for Euthanasia" in February 2015. Here we will participate in the intellectual balance controversy of 2014, legalizing suicide assistance, complementing other non-belief debates and ideas, based on the discussion of opening and closing Daniel Sulmacy, for suicide and euthanasia We provided four unorthodox discussions to the doctor. (1) "to offend me"; (2) landslide; (3) "can relieve pain"; (4) physician integrity and patient trust

About the issue of spontaneous euthanasia with end stage disease, debate over 10 years has been carried out in the 1990s. The most common argument for euthanasia is based on ancient religious teachings and unrealistic fears. The strongest argument is that euthanasia is abused. To be honest, I have never written laws that can not be abused or abused. A country that can send people to the moon and bring them back safely can write good euthanasia they desire. A dying man will want or need it. Either way, just because someone does not want euthanasia for themselves, no matter how hopeless their state is, the right to choose euthanasia when life is no longer worth There is no reason to refuse. Getting legal aid for the patient's unbearable death process is comforting for many patients and will alleviate concerns about the prosecution of physicians hiding that act today.