904_Ind4_S3

Name: Yesenia (Democrat) qGarcia

Instructions: You are to interview two people and record their responses on this form. You should state their name and their comments to your solution to the identified problem.

VI. I interviewed two individuals to see what their response would be to my plan. Their responses are as follows...

I interviewed an elderly man, Mr. Henry Lau, and my older brother, Mr. Greg Garcia. Both men are pro-euthanasia.

Mr. Lau said that people who are euthanized get to end their suffering, and when no other feasible options are available, then euthanasia is like a saving grace, because living without joy in your life is no life worth living at all. However, he also said that killing someone is considered to be ethically wrong, no matter who does it or how it is done, and euthanasia crushes all hope left for miracles and such. Mr. Lau said that euthanasia should be legal for those who wish to pursue it, because it is ultimately an individual's choice. He believes that, "Euthanasia is good because [doctors and medical staff gets to help] the ones that can't be helped [anymore.]"

Mr. Garcia said that people who are euthanized get to die on their own terms, and overall, those who opt for euthanasia get to die with dignity, yet he believes that euthanasia is seen as morally wrong to many, because of religion, and also he believes that some people fear that doctors will abuse the power to euthanize by euthanizing anyone who seems like they can benefit from it. Mr. Garcia said that euthanasia should be legal because, just as Mr. Lau said, it is an individual's choice. He asked, "Heroes choose how they die, so why can't ordinary people?" He also added, "Since when has euthanasia been the choice of others, when the choice [should come] from oneself?"

VII. My answer, based on my research, to their objections and concerns are...

I understand why Mr. Lau and Mr. Garcia see that euthanasia is ethically wrong, and why religion plays a major role in this issue. Also, one part of my research revealed that euthanizing any individual violates the "Doctoral Code" that new doctors pledge to when they begin their practice. Doctors should not harm, some religions disapprove of euthanasia, and others think that euthanasia is blatantly unmoral. I think that letting someone suffer, against an individual's wishes to end the suffering, is more unmoral that ending their life, but only if the individual (who is terminally ill) is willing to die. Also, religion should not play a part in this decision. People do not have to say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools nowadays, since it is not mandatory, and this is because legislators and others involved in the law-making system can see through the "religion boundary." If euthanasia passes as a law, for all 50 states, then people who qualify for euthanasia can be euthanized, but ultimately, individuals get to choose whether or not they want it, regardless of religion. In the end, one religion's beliefs should not affect an entire country's right to live or die. Last, but not least, euthanizing does not violate the "Doctoral Code." Every time that someone goes under the knife, so to speak, they face the possibility of dying. Before going into surgery, people have to consent to, or have someone consent for them, having the surgery. If an individual verbally consents to being euthanized, and they meet the requirements befitting of a euthanized person, they who are we to stop him/her? A terminally ill person lives with more hurt before being euthanized than after, so some people contradict themselves when they insist that the "Doctoral Code" says that doctors should do no harm. In the end, euthanasia should be the choice of an individual, and euthanasia can equal happiness for someone, in the afterlife, and everyone else not involved in making that decision should live and let die.