The Opponents of Euthanasia, the right to Die Shouldn't be Denies
A TO DIE SHOULDN'T BE DENIED
Forty-one year-old Peter Cinque was in the terminal levels of diabetes. He was blind, had lost both hip and legs, and experienced from ulcers and cardiovascular problems, aswell. He had been kept alive by a kidney dialysis machine. Then one moment he asked his doctors to avoid the treatment. As a conscious, rational adult, he previously the right to determine what should or shouldn't be done to his human body. But the hospital authorities refused to honor this until he previously been examined by two psychiatrists to check his mental competence. Following this, the hospital obtained a courtroom purchase that required him to keep with dialysis treatments. A couple of days soon after, Mr. Cimque stopped inhaling and exhaling. He previously suffered from brain harm and was in a coma. Only following this and two courtroom hearings in a healthcare facility that he was finally permitted to working out his constitutional ideal of self-determination (Ogg 61). What an unfortunate incident. Mr. Cinque was pressured to prolong his suffering due to too little guidelines to guarantee the right of self-determination. Because of this, euthanasia should be legalized in a way that individuals to choose for themselves what should or should not be done with their bodies. That's, laws should be strengthened and guidelines should be set to guarantee the right of euthanasia will never be denied to people.
The case for euthanasia is definitely justified on three fundamental moral rules: mercy, autonomy, and justice (Battin 18). First of all, there is principle of mercy.