Members of the independent organization “Right to Life”¯ interviewed thousands of doctors from different medical institutions in the UK and USA, and found that seventy-four percent of them do not actually intend to provide assistance to their patients in assisted suicide, and the fifty-six percent generally considered any debate on the question meaningless, since the strict legal definition of “assisted suicide”¯ is not possible by its nature (Keown, 2002). Thus, assumptions about the desire of doctors to legally obtain certain rights to participate in the termination of life of the patients are not true.
The second support in relation to make euthanasia illegal in all 50 American States is connected with humanism. For example, many opponents of euthanasia emphasize that requests for euthanasia are rare in institutions where the humane care and positive recognition of the value of each person are key points in the interaction with patients. Let us look at the situation when many patients with incurable diseases suffer excruciating pain because the doctors do not give them a sufficient dose of painkillers, and even give inadequate psychological support. Some people consider that person’s desire to die is justified in this case, but to “kill”¯ terminally ill patients is not a decision in the situation; it is better to work on building new hospices to give a person the opportunity to die with dignity, if medicine can not cure them.
There are concerns that the practice of euthanasia can generate pressure on the elderly and vulnerable people who are in particular need of support around them. According to the Department of Health of Oregon (USA), where active euthanasia is legalized in 1997, no one of the patients who were provided medical assistance to euthanasia had documentary evidence of uncontrolled pain, as a rule, all the patients suffered from loneliness and were dependent on others (Lavi, 2007). Thus, in this case it can be said that euthanasia is a way to the dehumanization of our society.
In continuation of our discussion, we should also mention that religious concerns about euthanasia play a big role in making the “mercy killing”¯ illegal. Firstly, it is important to remember that the life was given to a person by God, and nobody can take away human life except of God. Abrahamic religions, such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are traditionally strongly opposed to euthanasia, considering it as a form of suicide, as it was previously mentioned, life is given to man by God, and nobody else has the right to dispose a person of it. Thus, the doctor who commits euthanasia not just becomes a killer, but also assumes the divine right.
It goes without saying that both ordinary suicide and such a kind of assisted suicide as euthanasia are immoral from the Christian point of view. Religious treatises declares the truth that man must accept everything that God sends to a person in this life, rather than trying to challenge God, rejecting divine gift, which the life is … In such a way, morality based on the necessity of euthanasia is really quite false. Eternal life is more important than all earthly concerns, and people deprive themselves from their place in the Heaven by committing suicide (Keown, 2002).
In conclusion, we have observed different supports why the euthanasia should be illegal in all 50 states in the U.S., and provided many examples in support to this opinion. Moreover, we have concluded that it is virtually impossible to ensure that all cases of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalization of the law will not be abused. We are also concerned that the most vulnerable people – the elderly, lonely, weak or distressed – would feel pressure, whether real or fictional, that would ask for the early death.