Euthanasia, a term for a physician assisted suicide, has been in debate for many years. Those against euthanasia points out the morality of the act, declaring it immoral to kill a patient in life support without the patient's consent. Those for euthanasia argue the financial and emotional pain families have to suffer because of the terminally illed patient. I support euthanasia as an alternate answer to those families suffering with a patient in bed terminally. However, I would disagree a physician assisted suicide of a normal person like the practices of Dr. Kevorkian. Euthanasia relieves a family of the financial burdens, emotional heartaches, and provides a chance for families to move on.
Medical bills are probably one of the most expensive expenditures a family makes. In US alone, thousands of dollars have to be spent just to treat someone or do a check-up. Of course, with insurance policies, many families had the burden eased from their shoulders.
However, when it comes to a terminally illed patient or one in life support, insurance policies don't help much. They are willing to pay for a patient until a limited amount of time and afterwards, it still would be the family's responsibility for medical bills. Euthanasia can lessen or even completely take away those financial burdens. I do suggest a family should consult an advisor or a judge on whether it is advantageous to "euthanize" the patient at that time.
When there is a patient in bed, and the family doesn't know if the person will wake up, the emotional burden is unbearable. Sometimes family tend to concentrate mainly on the patient and disregard other responsibilities in life. And they themselves become weaker and weaker because of emotional pains. Euthanasia can bring them out of those pains. Though it will seem...