Among them is the opinionated British newspaper, The Economist, who actively stands with the supporters of assisted death. According to The Economist, “Death is a fearful thing, but it is the pain of life that leaves many ill people in despair...some people would like to die peacefully at a time of their choosing with the assistance of a doctor” (12). People argue that assisted death is against their religious customs, and that it is unnatural to approve these conditions, but “In a pluralistic society, the views on one religion should not be imposed on everyone” (Economist 12). Some people might dispute that people could get financially or socially pressured by your insurance or peers, but The Economist counters this with an easy solution; “...they may indeed feel pressure, but that is simply a reason to set up a robust system of counselling, and psychiatric assessment, requiring the agreement of several doctors that a patient is in their right mind and proceeding voluntarily” (12). Furthermore, those who are against assisted death can frequently never understand the daily pain that the patients go through, and if they did, there would be more empathy and understanding for the matter. The idea of assisted death may go against the morals of the people, but to every moral or principle of society, there are always exceptions. “In …show more content…
For the majority of the debate, the resistance is pulling through, as it is illegal in most parts of the world. Assisted death can’t be accepted around the world as long as people keep forcing their religious and ethical customs on to other people, the procedures remain strongly vexed, and the many alternatives stay justifiable, and this puts many people at risk of immense suffering. Sometimes it’s best to consider that some people fear that death is the end of their life’s chapter, but others embrace it as a beginning to a better