Often times death is considered the cruel truth which all people must come to accept and embrace at one time in their lives; if death was a better choice than the alternative, a much different approach and opinion would be taken by society. This is often the case for patients who have terminal illnesses which cause them unbearable pain each day. These patients wish for nothing more than to be able to painlessly end their own suffering through embracing death. For these patients, the offer of a painless death beckons much greater than the prospect of another day of continued agony and suffering. Human euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is the practice of painlessly administration of chemicals into a patient’s body which results in a controlled, painless death. Through physician-assisted suicide, patients who experience daily pain and suffering may die without any further delay or pain. Human euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should be accepted as justice because not only does it follow the right of all people to die and avoid the pain and agony that is the alternative, but it is also a more financially responsible method to handle situations involving terminal illnesses.

Human euthanasia should be accepted as justice because it honors the right of all people to die. All competent, terminally ill patients deserve the right to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. If the patient is suffering daily, and only wishes to die to avoid this suffering, it should be their decision as to if they would like to pursue the option of a painless death through a physician-assisted suicide. It should be the right of all people to not be forced to endure unneeded pain, especially when it is avoidable or solvable (Frey 13). In many cases, terminally ill patients are forced to endure excruciatingly painful existences due to either not being able to have physician-assisted suicide performed, or due to the stigma associated with it. Patients should be free to choose to undergo euthanasia in order to relieve themselves of agony and suffering that they feel each day due to a terminal illness (Frey 23). It is the ethical thing to allow human euthanasia due to the right to death being a right that all people have because it is unethical to force individuals to endure continued existence when it torments them with pain and suffering. No one should be forced to endure suffering that could be alleviated through physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is often the only method for helping these terminally ill patients experience relief from the pain they feel, and it is not the place of society to regulate whether or not they should be able to attain this relief (Girsh 12). The idea of society keeping a terminally ill person from experiencing relief from their pain is terrible, as people should be free to make decisions free from the influence of others regarding their personal suffering and the absence thereof. Additionally, people who are tortured everyday by the pain they feel due to their diseases deserve to be happy. In order to feel happy, these patients should not feel the pain which they do every day; they should be free to exercise their right to death because it would help to stop the pain they feel. These people have been suffering for such a long time, and all they want is to end their pain (Kimsma 2). If physician-assisted suicide is accepted as justice then they could achieve the bliss and release that they had only imagined before. If physician-assisted suicide is branded as unjust and is no longer practiced, these people will be forced to endure as much pain as their disease mandates. They will live a painful existence, tormented by the pain they feel as well as by the desire to just end everything. These people will die slowly, very much in pain the whole time; they will die knowing that their delayed death and prolonged pain could have been prevented through physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide should be accepted as justice not only because it honors the right of all people to die and avoid unnecessary suffering, but also because it is a more financially responsible method to handle terminal illnesses.

Physician-assisted suicide is a more financially responsible method to deal with terminal illnesses than continued medical services and care. Terminally ill patients require a multitude of services and treatments, all of which are extensively expensive. While people are often shocked to believe that economics and finances would affect their life-and-death decisions, it is a fact that expensive end-of-life care often impacts the choice of physician-assisted suicide (Leeuwen 5). It is logical to believe that it is more financially responsible to opt for physician-assisted suicide due to the fact that physician-assisted suicide is often a cheaper and better solution than expensive, suffering-prolonging procedures for extending life. Modern medicine has evolved greatly in its ability to deliver life prolonging services to terminally ill patients. However, these procedures are often brutal, expensive, and painful. It logically makes sense for a cheaper, more effective solution to be favored over a more expensive, less effective one. Physician-assisted suicide offers a cheaper alternative to expensive life-prolonging treatment that will immediately end the suffering that the patient feels, while refusal of physician-assisted suicide provides the patient with an increased span of life, but at the cost of their own quality of life (Nitschke 14). For these reasons, physician-assisted suicide is logically a more reasonable practice for terminally ill patients. Secondly, it is unethical to force patients and their families to pay for continued life support and life-prolonging treatments and services simply because the only alternative, physician-assisted suicide, is illegal. Many families and patients are unable to cover expensive life support services that are required. It may be difficult for them to pay for these services due to health insurance not covering it, or they may simply e paying for all procedures out-of-pocket. They are essentially being forced to expend more money on life support services even if they are extending the patient’s life at the expense of their quality of life (Nitschke 16). Even if a patient and their family has come to the conclusion that they are unable to financially bear the weight of expensive continued medical services, if physician-assisted suicide is illegal, they will be forced to continue to pay them. Physician-assisted suicide offers a financially reasonable alternative to expensive medical services, which in many cases is desirable for families and patients. Additionally, in the case that an elderly terminally ill patient is being refused physician-assisted suicide and is having their medical services paid for by their children, they may wish to take the more financially reasonable route of physician-assisted suicide in order to lessen the financial burden which they are placing on their children (Nitschke 24). This gives rise to an ethical issue because the family is forced to pay for medical care that they have deemed to be unwanted as well as too expensive for them; essentially, if physician-assisted suicide is illegal and unjust, then society will be forcing families and patients into debt and financial instability simply because they are unable to accept the more reasonable option of physician-assisted suicide. While there are numerous arguments for the acceptance of human euthanasia as justice, there are still arguments against it.

While there are several arguments against the institution of human euthanasia as just, one of the biggest arguments against euthanasia is that it’s irreversible. Critics of human euthanasia often argue that the effects of euthanasia are irreversible and that one cannot predict recoveries or breakthroughs in terminally ill patients. They also argue that patients may continue to live happy lives with their illness. They often believe that euthanasia should not be considered just because it removes any chance that the patient had to make a recovery, for a medical breakthrough to occur, or for a miracle to occur. However, these are all simply miracles, or figments of human imagination created by inability to comprehend truth. The chances of a miraculous recovery or breakthrough are astronomically low, such as they should not be considered a reasonable outcome (Vacco v. Quill 73). Additionally, in the countries where euthanasia is legal and practiced, euthanasia reduces life by often as little as a few hours. A Dutch case study found that in 86% of euthanasia cases, life was reduced by as little as an hour to a maximum of a week (Girsh 45). This means that euthanasia is a last resort for patients; it is an escape hatch used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather have their suffering ended now than in two days’ time. This supports the conclusion that in the cases in which euthanasia was used, the patient would have died shortly after, as well as that the chances of a miraculous recovery or medical breakthrough during this short period would be statistically impossible.

In conclusion, physician-assisted suicide should be instituted as justice and legal because it observes the right of patients to death and avoid unnecessary pain, as well as because it provides a more financially responsibly method for dealing with terminally ill patients. Members of society should be implored to take a stance for the institution of physician-assisted suicide; think about keeping your own children in suffering unnecessarily while a clear solution is present. Not instituting physician-assisted suicide as justice and legal would essentially be you keeping those patients who are terminally ill in pain. Do not let those in pain due to terminal illness toll in suffering that could be prevented.