Euthanasia and Death Penalty - Free Essay Example

The two controversial topics that have grasped people’s attention are euthanasia and death penalization. The subject itself has roots that have been developed from the beginning of humankind. It is interesting to learn about this subject of matter because it may be useful to know in certain situations. Also, learning if there is a right or wrong in such actions will provide more perspectives on this matter. The decision of whether a person should live or die depends on the state laws. There are both rivals and followers of the subject. However, no matter how different opinions are, the state holds the authority of making this decision. Death penalization and euthanasia are serious matters that have not been taken lightly throughout time. State laws have been created for reasons, whether valid to society or not, it holds power beyond human control. The act of euthanasia was already known and conducted by people in the Roman Empire. Since it wasn’t in conflict with moral standards at the time, people were not condemning or judging those who performed it . Whether it is a sentence for a crime or an illness taking over, who has the right to decide if a person’s life should continue or end. Can anyone measure the pain that one goes through while lying in bed unable to move? Only a few states in the USA legalized euthanasia, but many more states have the action of death penalization. Is it truly fair for people who did not commit any crimes to go through pain and suffering, and not being able to leave this world in peace? But people who committed a crime sentenced to death under â€Å"merciful† circumstances. The word â€Å"euthanasia† derived from the Greek words that translate as â€Å"easy death† and means helping terminally ill persons to die in a fairly painless way . As in the case of a death penalization, euthanasia has its supporters and opponents. Whether it is one or the other depends on several facts, such as personal opinion, culture of the person that was brought up, religion that one practices, and circumstances surrounding the decision. Usually, if the decease causes the unbearable physical and mental pain, that person will ask to be killed, but if this factor is eliminated, then there is no reason to die. When a perso n asks to kill him or herself, it might be a cry for help in painful circumstances, whether it is mental or physical. However, euthanasia is not just â€Å"easy death†, but it is mainly a decision about it. The dilemma is if a person should die naturally, but in pain, or perform or not to perform certain actions, which will help him die without causing much torments. The main reason against euthanasia is that the medical professionals are under the oath to never do harm, particularly to kill anyone. Supporters of death penalization have several arguments justifying the state-sanctioned murder of those who take lives away. There is an old law that states, â€Å"tooth for tooth, eye for eye†. Then there is the practical argument stating that the death sentence keeps many criminals from being murdered. In addition, death penalization prevents recurrence in regards to murderers because if they are released from prison, there is a high chance that they will commit crimes again. Prison does not guarantee a mental fix for people who commit crimes such as man slaughter and or murder. The third argument is also pragmatic, and inferior because the state saves money by killing murderers. Instead of keeping them in prison for a lifetime expectancy, societies taxes and certain fees are contributed to subjects of this matter. The rivals state two ethical arguments, which consist of the following. In modern democracy, punishment should not only be punitive but should also try to reeducate a criminal to enable him to live in a society with others. While this argument is unconditional, those who have heard about modern prisons recognize that many inmates are immune to re-education, which is a fact that cannot be explained solely by conditions of custody. The second ethical argument is based on the commandment â€Å"Thou shalt not kill,† which also warns states alongside to murder. The strength of this argument is undermined by the fact that the state may resort to the death penalization to prevent severe crimes, or to prevent rebellion.