r conservative right’s. If humanity is involved in the decision, and religious myths for their own sake are left out, few can honestly believe in the modern era that Physicians should not have the right to assist the terminally ill who wish to end their pain and suffering while they retain a shred of human dignity.
There are those who argue that physician assisted euthanasia is fraught with potential for abuse, but nearly everything that is intended to be used positively possesses the same flaw. However, there are some legitimate concerns with regard to this issue. For one, many feel that if physician assisted suicide becomes legal, heirs who stand to inherit wealth upon the death of the individual will be tempted to hasten the process. Another concern is that those who are of unsound mind, mentally ill, handicapped or senile, will begin to seek such legal protection. Yet another worry is that the decision will be made solely based on health care costs, “Few people are so tasteless as to link euthanasia and health care costs in the same breath, but there is a widespread view that medical care for the elderly costs more than we can afford. These financial pressures will multiply in the coming years as our population ages” (If Mercy 2). However, there is nothing tasteless in realizing that only technological advance has placed this financial burden upon the terminally ill and their families. Years ago you could not keep someone artificially alive for years. This can be done today, even when the patient has no chance for recovery, is in a vegetative state, often experiences great pain and suffering, and has no conscious awareness of their surroundings. Quality of life, just not extension of it need to be considered. Further, if the patient has stated their wish to die before becoming incapacitated, there is no reason to bankrupt them or their family to keep them alive as a vegetable.
One of the biggest advocates ...