In the discussion of euthanasia and assisted suicide, we must begin by agreeing on what we understand when we talk about these acts and what relationship they have with other end-of-life decisions that also occur in the context of medical care. Euthanasia is the action carried out by a doctor to cause the death of a patient, without pain, and at their request. Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician helps a competent patient end their life using a lethal medical prescription. When analyzing a complex issue like euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, perspectives change depending on each person's point of view. It should be noted, however, that in many respects this can only lead to two positions, either for or against. This raises many ethical questions, but there are reasons to support euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide as well as reasons not to do so. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayEuthanasia can be classified into two different types of procedures, passive or active, which also include the prospect of whether its application is correct or not. Passive euthanasia involves allowing the patient to die as a means of stopping or refusing treatment. Active euthanasia occurs when a doctor intentionally causes the patient's death, usually through the use of lethal medications. Since ancient times, medicine has been governed by moral principles, setting the tone between what is right and what is wrong, thus becoming the basis for the development of professional duties. The issue of euthanasia is one of great complexity and, as many views become increasingly liberal, non-conformity shapes the way the rules have been governed in such controversial cases. When faced with a person suffering from constant and ongoing suffering until the last days of his life, many people think it is right to expect an unprecedented end. Therefore, euthanasia has been classified according to different points of view, which has caused controversy in the bioethical debate of medical professionals and even the patient's own family. In my opinion, euthanasia and assisted suicide can be ethical, moral and justifiable because everyone has the right to autonomy and consent. For some, euthanasia is considered murder or suicide of the doctor or patient, for others it is mercy. put an end to the person's suffering. However, both visions have in common the end of a life, directly or indirectly. One of the arguments in favor of euthanasia and assisted suicide concerns the suffering endured by the patient. Suffering can be defined as the state of physical, mental or emotional pain and distress. In favor of euthanasia, it can be argued that in certain situations, living is worse than dying. This is justified by the suffering and pain caused by a terminal illness which can make life so distressing or difficult to bear, that death becomes a humanitarian act and is considered rational for the doctor to assist in suicide as a means to die with dignity. For a terminally ill patient, suffering can go beyond pain due to the conditions they find themselves in and make life unbearable. For example, loss of movement and activity, complete loss of freedom associated with dependence on others, physical discomfort such as nausea, vomiting or dyspnea, inability to work or speak,fear of dying, incontinence, weakness, loss of personal identity. , dementia, life loses all quality and meaning, death is therefore preferable. In the book Wild and Precious Life, Deborah Ziegler talks about her daughter Brittany Maynard, 29, who developed brain cancer in 2014. After her first diagnosis, Brittany underwent a partial craniotomy and partial resection of her temporal lobe to try to stop the growth of the tumor. However, the tumor soon returned even more aggressive. After months of research and doctors struggling to find effective treatments, Brittany discovered the option of assisted suicide to die with dignity. She knew brain cancer was going to kill her, but she refused to let it control when it would kill her. Brittany argued, "Who has the right to tell me I don't deserve this choice?" That I deserve to suffer weeks or months of enormous physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make this choice for me? Brittany wasn't ready to live with the side effects she was going to experience, so assisted suicide was her only option to take advantage of the little time she had and also control her time. Having the prescription in his possession created an immense sense of relief. She argued that even if she decided to change her mind about taking the medication, it was ultimately up to her to take it and end her life. Having this choice at the end of one's life is important because it provides control, confidence and resolve. Additionally, it brings tranquility during a difficult time that is usually dominated by fear, uncertainty and pain. Ultimately, this makes us question whether relieving suffering should be our top priority. When exploring the notion of autonomy, the question of ownership of one's life arises. This controversy is another reason to support physician-assisted suicide. A human being must not only have the right to life, but he must also have an equal right to death. In other words, every person must have the right to self-determination, choosing between living or dying. Preventing a patient from ending their life would make doctors and healthcare providers imperious. If this is the means for an individual to achieve peace and happiness, then it is his own right which cannot be denied. Patients should have complete freedom and control over their bodies and their lives. Each patient sees and values ​​life differently, which is why the importance of the principle of autonomy must be emphasized and respected. Additionally, justice must also be taken into consideration. The responsibility to be charitable or act in the best interest of the patient lies with the health care provider. It is their duty to mitigate and prevent harm and also provide palliative care. In addition to physically caring for their patients, doctors must support the decisions the patient makes, including rejecting life-sustaining treatment. The doctor must respect the patient's decision as well as his ethical and moral values. It is the act of compassion that fulfills the obligations of a physician and avoids negligence. In contrast, those who oppose physician-assisted suicide believe that physicians should have no role or authority to participate in intentionally ending a person's life. Although autonomy must be respected, doctors must also put it on an equal footing with other ethical propositions. In addition to practicing beneficence and non-maleficence, doctors should also play the role of healer. However, the practice of physician-assisted suicide can.