Euthanasia is a medical process that involves the termination of the life of a patient suffering from a chronic disease which, however, once left, sooner or he would then succumb to the disease. There are two forms of euthanasia: active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is allowed to die naturally by withdrawing or refusing medications, water, and diet. According to the law and the justice system, passive euthanasia is usually legal. These decisions are based on the facts of specific cases. Despite the differences in definition, both active and passive euthanasia have the same process with the same results. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay On the other hand, active euthanasia is also known as physician-assisted death. It is when a sick person's life is intentionally ended by unnatural means. Usually, the process involves the fatal inoculation of the prescribed medicine. However, there are additional methods such as depriving the patient of oxygen. The topic of euthanasia has significantly created a controversial issue whenever an individual views it on a legal, religious and healthcare basis. This is because the act is an easy method to culminate a patient's life and some patient relationships may not agree with the process. Difference in opinions about a patient's euthanasia usually creates conflicts between family members. There are numerous difficult situations that arise from the topic of euthanasia as most legal frameworks consider the process to be suicide. Patients who opt for the process are concluded to have committed suicide, while those who carried it out are believed to have committed murder. Furthermore, the debate has become central in society as different people have different opinions regarding the process. For example, some people wonder whether it is legal to end the life of a sick person or a grieving family member. Furthermore, they wonder if the process is different from killing someone. As such, the discussion centers on whether it is right for someone to decide on their own to end a patient's life without the individual's consent. There are some key ethical and legal factors surrounding the euthanasia process. As such, the permissible topic relating to euthanasia is advanced commands and wills to other individuals. Sometimes, with these incentives, the language used contributes to misunderstandings, forcing doctors to make their own clarifications. Additionally, a legal issue is in the euthanasia case study as the discussion concerns why a parent would choose to end a child's life when the child would have fought the disease much longer. Parents and guardians have the freedom to make decisions regarding their children's health care. However, this should not mean that doctors and parents should ignore children from deliberations and decisions regarding their health care and livelihood. In the state of Indiana, a law was passed that allows people with terminal illnesses to meet specific qualifications before submitting a request to a doctor for drugs that the person can self-prescribe to end the patient's life. The law also postulates specific qualifications that a doctor must have to recommend treatment to an individual. It also excludes an insurer from repudiating compensation of benefits under a life insurance plan based on a suicide section in the life insurance plan. Consequentially,the insurer must pay compensation to the insured's family provided that the indemnitee's death is the result of medical care at the time of death. However, the law establishes a Level 1 offense if an individual: Intentionally or knowingly exerts unwarranted influence on an individual to require a prescription to end the life of an individual or to put an end to a request for a prescription to end the life of a patient. Second, the law also establishes a Level 1 misdemeanor for an individual who, without the patient's authorization, knowingly falsifies, conceals, destroys, or alters a prescription claim to cause the death of a patient. The moral issues surrounding euthanasia are people deciding whether or not an individual should undergo the process, whether it is principled or not. Furthermore, ethical issues question the circumstances under which the process is justifiable and whether the process is passive or active or involuntary or voluntary. Therefore, it is crucial to employ the skills of highly trained professionals, infirmary beds, equipment and prescriptions for patients who want to live versus those who do not. Despite all these factors, only the sick individual understands how he feels, how the physical and reactive pain of the disease and prolonged death affect the quality of his life. There are several controversial cases surrounding the euthanasia process. For example, a nine-year-old boy with cystic fibrosis and his blood relatives agreed to undergo active euthanasia. The parents agreed to the trial because they did not want to continue the treatment because a doctor believed it would be healthier for the child. The case study raises both ethical and legal questions about why a doctor would support the death of a child when perhaps he or she could have fought the disease much longer. Following the doctor's recommendation, the child's parents were also affected. The parents suffered traumatic pain watching their child pass. In most cases, the patient's family members always tend to blame themselves for not being able to reverse the process once they realize that their relationship would have lasted a little longer if the parents had not agreed to the process. However, regardless of all the controversies surrounding the process, some countries have supported the legalization of euthanasia. However, the legalization of the medical process has faced a myriad of distinctive impacts, both positive and negative. The legalization of euthanasia has been a topic of debate since the dawn of modern medicine. The legalization of euthanasia will allow suffering patients to finally realize their last wish. I believe in the legalization of euthanasia to help those who suffer and help them die. As such, I support this process because I believe that every individual has the freedom to do what they want with their body. The legalization of euthanasia, however, has positive and negative effects. Legalizing the process would lead to numerous deaths of individuals suffering from depression and those who are euthanized against their will. According to research, approximately 1 in 10 cancer deaths are caused by euthanasia: this shows how professionals quickly give up and take advantage of the patient's depression. If doctors could get away with these unethical practices, they might invent the idea of ​​individual euthanasia as a way to escape the burden of solving patients' problems. Families may also be willing to opt out as the cost of hospital bills becomes a factor.Caring for a sick relative can prove to be a financial burden for families, who may opt for euthanasia. Furthermore, the less educated and poor minorities are the most vulnerable if the process is legalized. Losing a loved one to euthanasia will not prove that the doctors are to blame. Therefore, doctors can proceed and carry out the euthanasia process without the consent of the patient's family. This is attributed to the inability to pay hospital funds and also to the ignorance of doctors who become lazy in handling large numbers of patients. As a result, practitioners usually end up administering the drugs on patients but later attribute natural death. The process also denies some family members the opportunity to have their last words with the patient as some family members are usually not present during the process. Furthermore, religious concerns have been a significant setback in the legalization of euthanasia. Many religious individuals, especially Christians, have faith in life as a reward, and taking it away is an authority that has its place only with God. The Catholic bishops of the United States have actively opposed euthanasia, making it difficult for the country to legally adopt the process. This is attributed to the significant role religion plays in the country's decision-making process. On the other hand, legalizing euthanasia also has its long-term benefits. The process ends an individual's suffering. In a 1996 U.S. Court case involving the euthanasia process, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the right of an emotionally stable patient encountering an incurable disease to choose an appropriate and honorable death, rather than experience pain heartbreaking in his last days he was considered legal in the perception of methodical freedom. As such, permission to let patients voluntarily end their distress is not only vindicated but also necessary to safeguard the right to individual and physical independence. Furthermore, individuals in the advanced stages of their incurable diseases often end up becoming incapacitated. They usually depend on relatives and nurses for basic tasks such as showering, toileting and washing. This can be humiliating for patients. Therefore, they tend to choose to receive a dignified death through the euthanasia process. Giving a dying person the ability to make decisions about when and how they want to die allows them to take control of their existence. Furthermore, euthanasia also helps to eliminate the fear of financial burden. Inadequate funding for pain management and calming care, as well as the resilience of administration in care institutions, have contributed to the desperation of older people. As a result, people prefer to settle for euthanasia rather than spend large sums of money in nursing homes, but they have a limited lifespan. Many people who are dying always want to help others live like themselves, they have a limited life. They don't always want other people to suffer and go through the same suffering in life as they did. The incurable disease can spread dramatically and, in most cases, will cause destruction of the body and failure of organs. Euthanasia patients can donate their organs to other patients to save their lives. Therefore, if euthanasia were still banned, the organs could be damaged and infected with diseases and no one would be able to inherit them. Furthermore, no one will be saved because state laws, society and religion did not allow the person who wanted to be killed to die peacefully. The.