Many social sectors have been studied in regard to the approval or disapproval of the practice of euthanasia. Among the strongest voices is that of the religious. The predominant feeling among most religions is that euthanasia is not acceptable. Traditional Christianity believes it is a sin to kill and thus it is immoral to choose when to die or to act or fail to act in any way which would lead to a person’s death (Allen et al. , 2006). Even voluntary euthanasia is seen as unethical as that would be an act of killing one’s self.
The views of Jews are much similar to those held by traditional Christians and stem from the same argument (Allen et al. , 2006). Islam teaches that only Allah has the right to take life and it would be wrong for man or physicians to interfere (Allen et al. , 2006). Hindus and Buddhists also hold that to end life voluntarily would be to disrupt the cycle of karma (Allen et al. , 2006). However, changes have been occurring in the views regarding euthanasia.
This holds true even for religions. Even the traditional Catholics have had Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II state that if the patient is hopelessly ill then physicians may choose to stop treatment or if the patient is unable to speak for him or herself than relatives may do so for him or her (Allen et al. , 2006; Cahill, 2005). Even Protestants and Jews have opened up their viewpoints to include the right of the patient to choose for him or herself (Allen et al.
, 2006). The struggle of physicians against euthanasia is likewise degenerating. The opposition resulted mainly from the Hippocratic Oath wherein physicians bind themselves not to give any deadly medicine or to counsel the same to their patients (Allen et al. , 2006). However, particular cases of physician-assisted suicide as well as passive voluntary euthanasia have resulted in the increase in acceptance of euthanasia.
Because of cases wherein patients themselves have sued hospitals for the right to be given lethal medications and treatments have, more than anything else, changed the perspective on the professionalism of counseling and assisting in euthanasia (Allen et al. , 2006). The change in acceptance of euthanasia has also been observed in legislation and judicial processes. The state has increased awareness regarding the limits of state power in the face of basic human rights to life.
The right to life includes with it the right to a good quality of life and it is arguable that given the low quality of life experienced by the mortally ill patient, he or she should have the right to choose the manner of treatment he or she is to be given. Legislation and court decisions have therefore adopted a tolerance for euthanasia where patients have reflected an express desire to refuse life-support (Allen et al. , 2006). Little explicit action regarding the acceptability of active euthanasia has been said however.