Euthanasia should be legalised under a strict condition

Euthanasia should be legalised. At least, euthanasia should be considered as the last resort for taking both physical and psychological pain. If a person is suffering from an fatal crucial pain, and wishes to prevent the pain by terminating his life, euthanasia should be considered as the best alternative option if there is "not" any way to cure this patient from the terminal illness.

Another reason to support euthanasia is to discourage some doctors and hospital managers gaining an excess financial revenue taken from the income of their patients and the patients' families and significant others. Some doctors and hospitals sometimes tend to take the advantage of their patients' hope of curing their massive pain. They tend to convince their patients as though it is possible to cure the pain even though it is impossible in order to encourage them to keep spending their medical expenses.

The worrying matter of legalising euthanasia is that doctors and hospital managers may take the advantage of the low cost (Financially and Time-wise) by giving euthanasia without a proper medical examination. Even though it is still possible to save the patients life without remaining a terminal pain, doctors and hospital managers may decide giving euthanasia rather than giving a further medical treatment. In addition, patients might not be able to obtain the proper information enough to know the possibility of surviving without taking euthanasia. In this situation, doctors have an advantage to bias the information for the patients.

In order to avoid this disadvantage for patients, the option for euthanasia should be regulated to not be a very easy option to be chosen. The third person has to be informed well with the process of all medical treatments taken and how both doctor and patient agree with each other. This third person will be a witness to prove that the legal and fair contract and decision are made between doctor and patient. The patients' right to survive within the possibility and obtain the proper sets of the information have to be given to them. The doctors also have to choose to give euthanasia as the last resort for their patients with a proof of the enough medical examination having taken previous to the euthanasia process. The third party has to be there to become an mediator with an objective view point going between them to make sure both parties agree or disagree by means of the proper contract and information provided.


In terms of the ethical view point, many of both utilitarians and deontologists tend to agree with conditionally legalising euthanasia under the fair regulation.

Utilitarians are afraid of the bad consequence by legalising euthanasia such as hospital managers giving euthanasia as a cheap option rather than as the last resort. But, Utilitarians generally agree with offering the higher utility from eliminating the terminal pain than keep suffering from it for the long time.

Deontologists generally disagree with "killing" lives by humans' hand because tolerating euthanasia, the behaviour of killing, makes human-beings take "killing/murder" for granted. However, Deontologists also agree to give "mercy" to individuals to help them to take their terminal pain off to save their spirit from their deadly painful life.

All in all, both Utilitarian and Deontologists agree with the "mercy killing" but disagree with "murder-like".


Judging from the point of view from Objectivists, who insist on egoism for self-survival, suiside is an ultimate vile, or the error caused by the lack of individuals' consciousness, which individuals must avoid. By contrast, Objectivists also support the freedom of choice. In this aspect, Objectivists disagree with the suiside caused by the desparation induced by an oppressive environment. But, they admit the suiside if there is no alternative option to divert from the terminal malcondition other than commiting suiside. Therefore, Objectivists support legalising euthanasia, the desired suiside, as the last alternative option of individuals' choice.


In conclusion, having taken legal, psychological, fiancial, managemental, and ethical factors based on the three major philosophical theories, although there are some controvertial problems, euthanasia should still be considered as one choice. It is important to safely legalise euthanasia for the cause of freedom of choice as long as it protects individuals' liberty and right. Hense, euthanasia should be legalised under the strict condition.

Right / Wrong / Evil

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist." | Galt's speech" --- Ayn Rand

Oh, if Stalin had been born in a capitalist nation, he would have been a very sucessful capitalist....

Socialist Country such as USSR is where one extraordinarily humongous corporation monopolises an entire market of an entire country! Therefore, what Stalin did would be right for his own and his corporation because he followed the rational egoism to administrate his corporate governance. If all excellent persons were in the same situation as Stalin was, they would be same dickhead cruel uncivilised bastard like Stalin.

By contrast, our healthy capitalist society does not allow such a mal-function in the market. Capitalism supports the equilibrium, fair competition, and natural right for individuals. Therefore, it is almost impossible to establish the same system as the USSR unless it installs an intense collectivist policy. Oh, I regret Josef Stalin was born in Soviet Socialism... If Stalin had been born in a capitalist nation, he would have been a very successful capitalist....