Euthanasia is NOT Ethical or Moral

According to the Oxford dictionary, euthanasia is medically-supported death and kills patients with intractable diseases without pain. Euthanasia usually allows the physician to bear the responsibility for providing the patient with a death option or for asking relatives of the patient to euthanize the patient. Many of the victims of euthanasia are related to the elderly or newborn. Euthanasia is immoral and adversely affects the lives of many people. Euthanasia remains valid even if the patient has the opportunity to live.

Euthanasia is nothing but cold blood and murder. The life expectancy of euthanasia is more serious than the problem of abortion. Euthanasia is morally and morally wrong and should be banned in these countries. Modern medicine has recently made tremendous progress, euthanasia has relocated these medical advances over the years and has reduced today's doctors to death administrators. The term euthanasia is often used to mean simple or painless death. Voluntary euthanasia involves a request from a deceased patient or his legal representative. Passive or negative euthanasia does not involve taking measures to prevent death - that is, allowing someone to die; positive or positive euthanasia involves taking prudent action leading to death

General medical practices in North America 6 and Europe 7-9 tolerate passive euthanasia in some cases but never actively euthanize. Two ethical issues should be considered. First of all, is there a specific moral difference between killing and death? Second, if there is no moral difference, is there still a moral reason to prove some form of euthanasia rather than anything else? Many people believe that despite regular medical practice and the recognition of the law by most caregivers there is no inherent moral distinction between killing and death. Difference between killing and blurring, in some cases, such as withdrawing the patient from the ventilator or stopping intravenous infusion. However, even if it is clearly distinguished, the moral relevance of this distinction may not be as follows.

John Stuartmir's "practical" ethical theory and Immanuel Kant's "sorting order" ethical theory. According to utilitarianism, euthanasia is morally justified, and according to Kantism, euthanasia is morally irrational; however, I lead these two positions to their particular position Argued that it is due to a large defect inherent in inference. There is no suitable solution to this problem. According to Utilitarianism, morality is mainly of the kind ... the theory behind Utilitarianism is that if the it does not promote happiness or joy, the behavior of a person that it is wrong promotes happiness and happiness This is the case. The point of this theory is the principle of utility, "maximum happiness to the people who should be the most". (Palmer) Jeremy Bentham basically brought it to the name of Utilitarianism. I pay more attention than those before him