Argumentative Essay On Mercy Killing
Mercy killing, also known as controlled suicide or euthanasia occurs when a person ends another person’s life intentionally. Among the reasons is that they believe that it is in their best interest to alleviate pain and suffering from a patient suffering from an incurable disease. The term is used to describe both situations when a person asked their life to be ended and when they never asked. Under the current law, any person who ends another person’s life can be charged with murder and also face mandatory life imprisonment if found guilty. However, mercy killing has long been used to justify euthanasia when the perpetrator is considered to have acted out to free the person from suffering . This creates a conflict over whether the accused are mercy killers who deserve compassion from the courts or whether they are murderers who should be prosecuted and convicted . Many ethicists would justify the action since the ultimate motive was good, but others would say that while the ultimate motive was to stop the person from suffering, no person has the right to kill so as to achieve that end. The paper discusses …show more content…
In this essay, the author
- Explains that mercy killing, also known as controlled suicide or euthanasia, occurs when a person ends another person's life intentionally.
- Opines that mercy killing is a serious mistake, based on superficial issues of self-determination and choice.
- Explains that mercy killing is a manifestation of an individual's autonomy at par with responsible control over their destiny. it is used to control suffering which does not give some hope to illness.
- Explains that terminally ill patients are diagnosed with degenerative, progressive illnesses such as als, multiple sclerosis, huntington's disease, or alzheimer’s. they fear the gradual loss of their quality of life in the future.
- Explains that some patients do not want to diminish their assets by incurring huge medical costs as their death approaches. voluntary euthanasia involves a patient acting voluntarily to end his or her life.
- Explains that dr. jack kevorkian assisted over 130 patients between 1990 and 1998. assisted suicide has become a felony offense in most states and was forbidden in the american medical associations (ama) code of ethics.
- Explains that the debate surrounding mercy killing in the united states has been influenced by medical practices in other countries, including netherlands, which legalized both physical assisted suicide and active euthanasia in april 2001.
- Explains that assisted suicide is considered unethical in the modern society. kevorkian's method of administering potassium chloride to cause death was popularized.
- Opines that terminal illness does not justify a patient's cause of death or lessen the value of their life. the hospice regulations do not legalize performance of mercy killing in the hospice program.
- Opines that christians are obliged to adhere to the teachings and seek for wisdom from god.
- Explains that mercy killing is a very old issue in the roots of classical thinking, but has come under the spotlight due to technicization of medicine.
- Explains that mercy killing evokes emotions regardless of how it is phrased. euthanasia is believed as a form of killing and violation of life as opposed to the human right for life.
- Argues that euthanasia violates human dignity and should be prohibited, while not allowing controlled suicide harms it.
- Argues that state governments should advocate for adequate homes and community based long-term care of patients with incurable diseases.
In history, it has been used differently. However, in the recent times, the concept has come under the spotlight due to technicization of medicine. There are other compounding factors which have pressed the problem in the contemporary society. First, there has been a shift in the understanding and perception of death. Death has been depersonalized and technicized. In addition, focus on human dignity and acknowledgment of people’s interdependence have given rise to new sensitivities in the form of increased manifestation of compassion and solidarity in the society. This has not only given rise to the distribution of health resources and justice, but also supported the idea of euthanasia which is a means of restoring clarity and finality of death which has been protracted by final medicine
- explanatory
- Explains that the euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die.
- Explains that there are several arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of euthanasia, including mercy, respect for autonomy, and kant's categorical imperative.
- Explains that many doctors believe that euthanasia is wrong, and that palliative care should be given when people have an incurable illness.
- Analyzes how euthanasia has a long history of philosophical discussion. ancient greek thinkers favored it, even though they opposed suicide.
- Argues that euthanasia is not a question of ending someone's life but the important question is how their life ends. pro-lifers, people who are against it, place the emphasis on killing.
- Opines that euthanasia is a controversial subject and that it should be left to the sufferer's conscience to decide whether they want to end their lives.
- Analyzes the cultural connotations of euthanasia, stating that it is a speedy and merciful death done for the benefit of the subject.
- Analyzes foot's use of euthanasia as the basis of its discussion within the paper, stating that it must be for the benefit of the subject exclusively and not for anyone else or any other cause.
- Analyzes how foot questions whether euthanasia can ever be morally justified, and defines charity as something that connects us to the basic goods of others.
- Analyzes foot's belief that non-voluntary euthanasia can be morally justified on the basis of noninterference.
- Analyzes phillipa foot's moral reservations about the act of euthanasia becoming commonplace and the potential negative social impacts that they might have on society.
- Analyzes phillipa foot's paper euthanasia, which examines the concept of euthanasy as it is presented in philosophy, everyday practice, and even its representation within the modern english language.
- Explains that practicing euthanasia is against the will of god. christians and jews believe that every human being is a gift from god and is made in god's image.
- Explains that legalizing euthanasia poses a threat to the vulnerable people such as the elderly, the poor and the disabled people.
- Argues that euthanasia is needed for the fair distribution of medical resources, but the legalization of it is not the best way letting more patients receive medical treatments.
- Concludes that in today's world there is no place for the legalization of voluntary euthanasia.
- Cites emmanuel ej, "cost savings at the end of life," jama, vol. 275, pp.
- Argues that the legalization of euthanasia should not be proposed nowadays.
- Cites r. m. walker's "physician-assisted suicide: the legal slippery slope," cancer control : journal of the moffitt cancer center, vol. 8, 2001.
- Opines that euthanasia should be considered as a legal and humane option for patients suffering from terminal diseases and victims of accidents.
- Defines euthanasia in the american medical association's code of ethics as the administration of a lethal agent by another person with the purpose of relieving intolerable and incurable suffering.
- Explains the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide, stating that the patient is the one who completes the process of suicide.
- Argues that euthanasia should be considered a legal option because it helps the patients to alleviate their incurable and stoppable pain and suffer.
- Argues that the mercy killing reduces the emotional, psychological, and economic pressure on the family of the patient.
- Explains that euthanasia has been a moral and religious firestorm in the united states. pro-lifers, religious opponents, and the catholic church view it as morally wrong.
- Opines that euthanasia should be permitted and morally acceptable for individual liberties and general benefits of society.
- Cites the british broadcasting corporation and the gale encyclopedia of senior health: a guide for seniors and their caregivers.
- Explains that euthanasia, or assisted suicide, is the end of life of an extremely incapacitated individual's existence to calm them of their agony.
- Explains that euthanasia is considered leniency slaughtering, which is the heart of contentions about how individuals characterize the value of human existence.
- Explains that the patient has the option to select what treatment is beneficial for them, with little attention to the result from the malady process. the issue of death and dying raises questions in society when discussing the quandary of euthanasia
- Explains that patients have the right to consent to treatment that supports the outcome beneficial to the patient decision. the principle of autonomy must be addressed when discussing to terminate a life.
- Explains the importance of beneficence and non-maleficence in the view of euthanasia.
- Explains the purpose of euthanasia is to eliminate the patient from more pain and suffering.
- Explains that the principle of proportionality should be considered when deciding death, but it is not a required principle because of the patient's right to their own choice.
- Explains that consenting to euthanasia becomes unethical when the patient is incompetent to make a decision.
- Analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia in each case of termination of illness.
- Opines that euthanasia would not be ethically distributed because the elderly couple was not terminally ill or suffered from a disease. however, the physician obligation to uphold the patient's dignity in making decision of ending life.
- Explains that euthanasia is permissible in most cases, since the physician isn't intentionally bringing harm to the patient. morally, the doctor's actions are ethical if a patient requests to end their life.
- Explains that human euthanasia is the act of ending someone’s life intentionally, in order to relieve that person from further pain and suffering.
- Explains that non-voluntary euthanasia is not the same as murder or going against the consents of the patient.
- Explains that euthanasia in the uk is illegal, even though the law is blurry in some cases. suicide after the act stopped being a crime.
- Explains how the law becomes blurry when doctors can withdraw treatment necessary for the continuous living of the patient. in the case of anthony bland, the court ruled that it was a crime to assist someone in suicide.
- States that the netherlands is the first country to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide through the termination of life on request and assisted suicide (review procedures) act.
- Explains that they wanted to see what english people thought about euthanasia, and asked 100 people from london and southend.
- Explains that most people would like to have human euthanasia in the uk. they believe that terminally ill people should be able to kill themselves with the help of the doctor.
- Argues that euthanasia should be legal because terminally ill patients should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified and compassionate death.
- Explains that voluntary euthanasia has been the focus of great debate in recent years.
- Explains that passive euthanasia is an alternative name for withdrawal of treatment. it occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals don't do something necessary to keep him alive.
- Explains non-voluntary euthanasia, which is illegal in all countries, is also called murder homicide.
- Explains the reasons for euthanasia, such as insufficient treatment for pain or other symptoms, depression, hopelessness, and socioeconomic stressors.
- Explains that there are many diverse religious views when it comes to euthanasia. most religions disapprove of it, and some absolutely forbid it.
- Describes brittany maynard as a 29-year-old american woman with terminal brain cancer who decided to end her life when the time seemed right.
- Opines that euthanasia has been a vivid topic of debate and will continue to be during the years to come. brittany maynard of oregon was able to fight for what she believed was the right choice.
- Explains that hitler ordered widespread mercy killings in october 1939, but did not execute them. it was so hitler could have his perfect aryan race.
- Analyzes how matthew donnely, an amazing man who loved life, wanted to die. he had researched how x-rays work for years and faced skin cancer. his brother, harold, took his.30 caliber, went to the hospital, and preformed an euthanasia.
- Explains the hippocratic oath, which was written by a greek doctor who believed doctors must stay away from killing, only to be devoted to healing.
- Explains that hitler's mercy killings were done out of spite. the germans knew from the smoke and stench around the killing centers.
- Argues that euthanasia should be legal, but be extremely regulated so no one is getting money out of the patients' death.
- Explains that the right to die is based on a person's choice to terminate their life or to endure voluntary euthanasia. the supreme court cases relate to the constitutional right of the state to interfere with medical decisions.
- Analyzes the case of nancy cruzan, who was thrown from her car in a crash in 1983. she never regained consciousness because her brain was atrophying.
- Explains that chief justice rehnquist always looks to history and tradition to determine the side of the decision that wins.
- Analyzes the dissent written by justice brennan, with the addition of justice marshall and blackmun, on the side of which did not win in the court case.
- Concludes that the right to die is a very controversial topic. in cruzan v. director, missouri department of health, the issue is whether physicians should be allowed to prescribe lethal dosages of medicines to perform physician assisted suicide.
- Opines that parents should be able to make a decision to do what’s right for and by their child without interference of the states choice.
- Explains that if a person is unconscious does that person have the right to refuse treatment? while she might not be able to use her motor functions or speak she has the same rights as any to deny the treatment.
- Explains that washington's prohibition against physician-assisted suicide violated individuals, privacy, and substantive liberty protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution.
- Explains that assisted suicide and euthanasia are similar to each other because they both have to do with taking away another human being’s life.
- Argues that assisted death should not be legalized because it is very similar to homicide. the kenneth minor case is one of the most popular cases in which the difficulty to distinguish between a murder and assisted suicide has grabbed the public’s attention.
- Explains that pas and euthanasia are two experiences which threaten the doctor-patient relationship. according to hippocratic oath, doctors are not allowed to give deadly medicine.
- Explains that many hospitals, social insurance companies, and families find euthanasia helpful.
- Argues that legalizing pas and euthanasia is a delicate step because patients are not in the right conditions to make such decisions.
Related Topics
Argumentative Essay: Mercy Killing
Show More Mercy Killing, also known as euthanasia. It is a prominent topic for life and death morality issues. In most basic terms, euthanasia is the act of killing someone or letting them die at their request because they are going to die soon due to terminal or chronic illness and by killing or letting them die, one is granting them an act of kindness. It is a controversial issue that dates back to Adam and Eve. There are many debates as to why I feel it is immoral, and extremely cruel and inhumane. I will argue that Euthanasia is immoral and should be outlawed. My reasoning is based on several claims. First, the wrongness of intentional killing. Two, it is a slipper slope and people are killed against their own will and three, recovery is always possible. …show more content… While in some situations, it may be enticing to put someone out of their misery through euthanasia, society will adapt to the idea of killing people to solve complications. In the end, euthanasia will be allowed in non-end-of-life situations, that is, where a person is not terminally ill, or in excruciating pain, or willingly requests it. Those most defenseless to euthanasia manipulations will be the abandoned and defenseless members of society. A condemnation of this argument is that, as with any public policy, abuses with euthanasia can be reduced by passing strict guidelines. I argue that it is inhumane to kill a person against their will. In some cases, a person, could be out of their mind and not thinking correctly. A person, could be on drugs and consult a family member. However, the family member could trick them into thinking this is what is “best” for everyone. Although the family member, could be acting selfish just so they don’t have to deal with this any longer. I argue that we shouldn’t allow this. It is harmful to a person and we should allow God to take matters into his own hands. How would you feel if you were sick and a family member made this decision for you? Haven’t you ever been in a situation where you felt like you were talked into something and you didn’t necessarily want to do it? I have and I later felt horrible …show more content… We need to voice this and show our society that it is not bringing out the good. It is harmful to a person and society if we allow it. It is doing more bad than good. Morally, what makes the World better if we kill people who are ill? Euthanasia has no benefit and it very miserable for a family to deal with. Could you live with yourself if you told your family member to ask for euthanasia? Could you live with yourself, if your family member made that choice? I know I couldn’t and I think it is immoral to think one could look in the mirror with that guilt
Related Documents
Walter berns the morality of capital punishment.
We are saying it is OK, to kill someone if they have killed someone you love. We are showing that anger is the answer, when someone does you wrong. Also, by killing someone we are taking away their right to live, and to anyone who is religious this is fundamentally wrong. I understand that allowing the person to keep these legal rights, it could be a challenge , because it is not easy to do all these things in prison, but the person being alive in prison…
Rachels Arguments Against Active Euthanasia
Callahan feels that the law misleads the patient to feel they have autonomy thinking that the active euthanasia will help them reach the good life. The third point put pressure of the medical professional to achieve what the patient thinks is the good life. This point makes a patient think, escaping from personal life that is causing suffering instead of the pain from the sick of the body. Callahan feels that active euthanasia has no justifiable reason on why it would be right to legalize killing one another. Callahan objects to Rachels and Brock’s arguments for euthanasia.…
Simulating Murder Summary
We can bring self-defense into play to justified killing someone but not for the better good of saving other people’s lives. The study might hypothetical but they are true concerns. People tend to not perform an action if they find themselves as morally responsible for doing it. They have the need to find a justification for their actions as to not to be in discord with their guilt. Humans want to be quilt free which requires them to pin the blame on other for their actions.…
Arguments Against Euthanasia Research Paper
The controversy on whether euthanasia should be a viable option to end terminal disease is such an opinionated topic in society today. Most of the United States opposes mercy killing, but it is legal in some countries. Euthanasia also known as mercy killing, is the process in where another individual directly ends the life of another person primarily , because they are convinced that is the ideal option to relieve the suffering and agony from an incurable terminal condition. Individuals that concur with this action state that it is in their divine right to end their own lives, but euthanasia belittles the value of live , because it tells us that we can terminate our or someone else's life so facile. Legalizing mercy killing can destroy the ideology of life and create a dysfunctional civilization.…
The Nature Of Legalizing Euthanasia
The oath brought up the idea “that suicide was a social evil akin to killing another human person…”(Piercy 11). This practice is mainly used by doctors all around the world as it prevents them from participating in the destruction of another person under the “basis that they lack the quality of life, rather than considering whether the treatment will help the person get better or preserve their life until the natural end” (Piercy 12) Not only that but doctors that follow the hippocratic oath are bound not by law or physical thing, but for what it mean for people to be human. As human are fragile creatures and if doctors stopped treating people they 're taking away what it means to be human. Vidal 4 In conclusion, euthanasia brings strong points to why it should be legalized such as it constitutional for people to be able to die, it can be morally justified, and people should be able to die with dignity. Though criticized euthanasia has many benefits as free people should be able to decide what they want to do with their lives and how to do.…
Negative Arguments Against Euthanasia
The reason euthanasia is seen as king to some people, is because euthanasia is putting an end to a persons suffering. Simply put, it is important that every terminally ill patient at least has the choice of how and when they could end their life. Although euthanasia is thought to be immoral, removing the option from terminally ill individuals prevents one from making his/her own decision on their own lives. By becoming better educated on the subject and sympathizing with those that are terminally ill, the law…
Ethical Dilemma Euthanasia
Ethical Dilemma: Euthanasia According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of euthanasia is, ‘the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering’ (“Euthanasia”). This definition makes the ethical argument seem almost unanimous: suffering is a terrible thing, so we, as human beings, have a responsibility to do everything and anything we can to end someone’s pain. Many advocates of euthanasia rely on two simple but choice-pleasing arguments. That a person’s autonomy, along with compassion for the suffering, take precedence. The opposition claims that it is not that simple, they claim that euthanasia defies the sanctity of life and the physician’s role, and that there is a large…
Euthanasi Right Or Wrong?
Supporters of Euthanasia are going to argue that it is a person’s right to choose whether they live or die. Supporters will argue that “people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition should be al-lowed to die in dignity” (Math, 2012). Supporters believe that euthanasia is an act that can end pain and suffering for a struggling individual and those around them that are affected by their struggles. For most supporters, euthanasia is seen as “mercy” and/or a dignified death (Nunes,…
Arguments Against Euthanasia In Today's Society
Euthanasia is a serious issue in today’s society. Euthanasia is the act of relieving someone of his or her suffering by intentionally ending his or her life. Many people argue that euthanasia is beneficial to the person suffering as well as his or her family. On the other hand, many people argue that euthanasia is morally wrong. Overall, euthanasia is not beneficial to anyone, and the practice should be stopped for good.…
Arguments Against Legalizing Euthanasia
O’Neill also argues that making euthanasia legal would replace “love with law”. If it is legalized, euthanasia can no longer be considered mercy killing. It would replace a decision that should be made with the consultation of family and doctors with one that is monitored by the government and death-sanctioning lawyers. Ultimately, a government does not care about the patient’s life, adding them into the equation would diminish the love and compassion a terminally ill patient should feel at the end of their life. Legalizing euthanasia would only cause more pain as it would introduce more unneeded stress to the patient.…
Related Topics
- Medical ethics
- Voluntary euthanasia
Ready To Get Started?
- Create Flashcards
- Mobile apps
- Accessibility
- Cookie Settings
- RESEARCH PAPERS AND ESSAYS
- ESSAY TOPICS
- PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
- Joseph Robinette Biden
- Donald Trump
- Barack Obama
- States Ranked by Size & Population
- States Ranked by Date
Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia
Of mice and men euthanasia right or wrong analysis.
Is it right to believe that it is morally right to kill someone if they are mentally unwell and/or consent of such? In the novella “Of Mice and Men” George kills Lennie who is notably, mentally unstable. In the article “Euthanasia” twins ,Marc and Eddy, wish to be euthanized because of the pain that they were experiencing everyday. If someone is in enough pain that they see it is fit to be euthanized, they should have every right legally to do so.
Pro Assisted Suicide Argumentative Essay
Many people hear assisted suicide and they think that it is criminal or unjust. Many people, more than we realize, have to battle with terminal illness. Every day, they go through pain and suffering. They shouldn’t have to go through this because of the opinions of other people. Assisted suicide or acts like it can help them. They have the right to choose how they want their life to go.
Argumentative Essay: The Pros Of Assisted Suicide
“If a man is terrified, it’s up to me to dispel that terror” said, Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Imagine a doctor giving someone a pill, because they wanted to die! This is not right under certain circumstances because, first doctors were trained to heal life not end life, God gave us life and that should not be taken away, and it is an abuse of drugs. Assisted suicide should only be considered if the patient has no ability to recover from their conditions.
Argumentative Essay: The Death With Dignity Act
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience. However, there is hope of a peaceful death for these patients that exists in a controversial law being considered by many states throughout the country. It is known as the Death with Dignity Act. This law gives terminally ill patients the option of ending their own life in a painless manner at a time and place of their choosing by
Assisted Suicide Argumentative Analysis
Death is a natural process that will be experienced by everyone at some point, desirably at the end of a long, well lived life. The reality is that no one knows when that time will come or how it will happen. Unfortunately, for the terminally ill, death is in the near future and it is a sobering reality. Therefore, when that time comes, people need to know that they will have options, and the assurance that death does not have to be an agonizing end. They can choose to endure the annihilating pain that comes with the disease and allow it to take its natural course or choose to put an end to it, surrounded by those who love them. For the terminally ill the decision of ending their lives with compassion should be a fundamental right, a personal
Persuasive Essay On Euthanasia
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is the act of permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured patients. This is never suggested by the caretaker rather than requested by the patient or their family. Few areas such as the Netherlands have already legalized this practice. This debate, as split as a fork in the road, is over whether or not this approach should be legalized worldwide on stances regarding religion, ethics, and self choice.
Argumentative Essay: The Right To Die
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.
Ethical Essay: The Role Of Euthanasia In Medicine
The word “euthanize” means to bring about a person’s death to relieve them from serious distress. The topic of euthanasia in medicine has evolved since intensive care was first instituted. Before the 1950’s, a simple model was used to determine when someone was dead: the individual was dead when his or her heart stopped beating. In the modern light, the answer to this question isn’t as clear. With advancements in organ transplantation and other medical technologies, the stopping of a beating heart is no longer a definite death sentence. This prolonging of life brings about many ethical dilemmas in the field of medicine. One of the issues is patient autonomy. The practice of euthanasia has been established to put the choice back into the hands of the patient. To better understand euthanasia, there are five different types.
Euthanasia can be interpreted in different ways depending on the person/point of view. Euthanasia is another word for mercy-killing, those who are in great pain and their treatments show no sign of progress can choose euthanasia as an option to die mercifully and with dignity. When a person goes through euthanasia, they consume a euthanasia solution through a vein or by drinking it. Then, they rest as the solution kills them. There have been many controversies on whether euthanasia should be legalized. For example, people have argued for the right to live and the right to die. The term, euthanasia, is sometimes misinterpreted and not thoroughly analyzed by others to be truly understood why its controversies exist.
Chronic diseases affect approximately 133 million Americans each year (National Health Council 1). Even more, are mortally wounded. All of these patients will most likely have to endure unnecessary pain and suffer a horrible end. Most of them do not want to go down the spiralling road of needless pain and have to face what these diseases will do in their last months or years. Why should doctors and Americans who have not been through these events be the ones to stop them if they do not want to go through all that trauma of these diseases or even injuries? They shouldn’t. That is why assisted suicide needs to be made legal in all of the United States.
Euthanasia is the end of a person that was suffering from an illness or a traumatic accident in the past that has affected them and changed them to a different person. Most of these people find them self to believe they are a nuisance to others such as family members or some care givers. Euthanasia is the process of end a live of someone in great suffering to relive the pain of whatever caused it in the first place. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics because of religious purposes or the choice of choosing a sooner death.
Argumentative Essay Pro And Euthanasia
Imagine having to endure so much pain and suffering for a majority of your life that you would just want it all to end. Well, there is a way one can stop their own pain and suffering and it is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. The act may only be done solely to those diagnosed with terminal illnesses such as cancer, aids, and heart disease. Many people agree with the idea of euthanasia as it can help those who are suffering be stripped of all the pain they are enduring. Whereas, others disagree with the idea of euthanasia because they believe the patient should have a chance to be treated and regain their health instead of choosing the “instant death” route and it may increase the number of assisted suicides. Euthanasia has been made legal in several places around the world such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, India, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, Japan and Canada. The only U.S. states that have legalized euthanasia are Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, Washington D.C., Vermont and Montana (“Legality of
There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient"".
However, the meaning of mercy killing in itself refers to ending a patient’s life due to an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. The moment the doctrine actively decides to end his patient’s life because of these factors, he is committing active euthanasia. Though it can be argued that the doctrine consults the patient and their family, which can be considered different than mercy killing, he is still participating in the assisted death. By providing the patient with the means to die, for example, through ridding him or her of treatment, he is taking an active
Have you ever imagined one of your loved ones suffering from a painful illness? Have you ever wanted that person to die and rest in peace? This is called Euthanasia, which means the termination of a patient’s life who is suffering from excruciating pain and a terminal disease. Euthanasia came from the Greek for good (“eu”) and death (“thanatos”) “good death”(Sklansky, (2001) p.5.) There are more than four types of euthanasia such as active euthanasia, which means that death is caused directly by another person by giving the patient a poisonous injection. Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of treatment that keeps the patient alive. Voluntary euthanasia means that the patient requests assisted suicide, while involuntary euthanasia means that it is done against the patient’s will. Euthanasia started in both the Roman Empire and Greece. In ancient Rome, euthanasia was considered a crime and was taken as murder. In general, Greece accepted euthanasia for patients who are suffering from extreme pain. Plato wrote “Mentally and physically ill persons should be left to death, they do not have the right to live”(A General History of Euthanasia, (n.d.) p.1 ) Sir Thomas More was the first prominent Christian to mention euthanasia in his book Utopia. Then, in the 18th century, Prussia passed a law that reduced the punishment of a person who killed a patient with an incurable disease. In the 20th century, euthanasia became a heated topic among numerous individuals, who
More about Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia
Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Assisted Suicide — Euthanasia Has A Positive Influence: Arguments
Euthanasia Has a Positive Influence: Arguments
- Subject: Social Issues
- Category: Human Rights
- Essay Topic: Assisted Suicide
- Published: 18 March 2021
- Downloads: 47
Table of contents
Introduction, why is euthanasia good.
- BBC (2004). Retrieved form www.bbc.com/ethics/euthanasia/overview/introduction.shtml
- Hausmann, E. (2004). How press discourse justifies euthanasia. Mortality, 9(3), 206- 222. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13576270412331272798
- Swarte, N. B., Van Der Lee, M. L., van der Bom, J. G., Van Den Bout, J., & Heintz,
- A. P. M. (2003). Effects of euthanasia on the bereaved family and friends: a cross sectional study. Bmj, 327 (7408), 189. Retrieved form https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7408/189.short
- Christian Barnard, cardiac surgeon September 24, 1984 – Nice France – Presentation at Federation of Associations for the Right to Die. Retrieved from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Euthanasia
- Norwood F. (2005). Euthanasia talk. Euthanasia discourse, general practice and end-of-life care in the Netherlands. Dissertation: University of California. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10730-007-9048-z?LI=true
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, 1889.
- DeMarco, D. (1999). The Sacredness of Human Life in a Desacralized World.
- The Linacre Quarterly, 66(1), 49-55. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20508549.1999.11877529
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student.
Related Essays
Nurses are confronted by largely controversial ethical issues related to healthcare and medical practice. Suppose that you are a “pro-life” faction member and you happen to work in a medical facility that provides abortion [...]
Relief from pain, and preservation of health and or life is the basic role of medicine and all the technologies associated with it. However, in some instances where the disease is a terminal one with no known cure, pain is the [...]
Some people agree with euthanasia or mercy killing because "It frees up hospital beds and resources". However, just because hospital beds are needed by other patients, that does not mean it is ok to allow people to die in order [...]
Many patients are admitted to the hospital near the end of their life or due to circumstances that foreshadow the end of one’s life. How someone dies, lives, and is medically cared for at the end of their life is important. All [...]
This review covers the current legal and ethical perspectives of scholars in the field of bioethics concerning physician-assisted suicide (PAS). It covers the development of new arguments for or against PAS that have been [...]
According to World Health Organization (WHO), Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is defined as “ all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs for [...]
`Who are you to decide who lives or die. Would you ever want to be put in that situation? I assume your answer is no. Every year there are thousands of people who are innocent and are put on death row, only a few of them ever [...]
33,000 people are killed in gun-related incidents, in the United States of America alone every year (The Second Amendment Guaranteed a Civic Right to Be Part of the State Militia). This is a very staggering statistic knowing [...]
The Central African Republic (CAR) continues to work towards the capacity of the government in regards to human trafficking. Various aspects such as violent conflict, extreme poverty, strong demand for labor in the informal [...]
Find Free Essays
We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling
Cite this Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Related Topics
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Where do you want us to send this sample?
By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
We can help you get a better grade and deliver your task on time!
- Instructions Followed To The Letter
- Deadlines Met At Every Stage
- Unique And Plagiarism Free
Do You Agree or Disagree With Euthanasia or Mercy Killing?
Euthanasia is the deliberate advancement of a person’s death for the benefit of that person. In most cases euthanasia is carried out because the person asks to die, but there are cases where a person can’t make such a request.
A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally ill. Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something necessary to keep the person alive (for example failing to keep their feeding tube going).
In my opinion it’s not moral to kill a person even if they are terminally ill because this person need a chance to live along and see his life, but there are people that disagree.
I have a debate in my college about this topic and I’d like to hear if you agree or disagree with euthanasia.
All the Yes points:
It frees up hospital beds and resources, it ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill, it relieves suffering, right to choose, relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate beyond recognition, it reduces the spread of diseases, the relationship between law and medical ethics, the ethical safeguards of pas, discrimination in palliative care and how pas can end it, how to save a life, all the no points:, it is not moral to end the patient’s life because he has the right to live longer, it is murder, sanctity of life, making the decision for yourself, or others, voluntary euthanasia gives doctors too much power, a lack of responsbility, the price they pay, the worst evil, yes because….
Terminally ill patients, or those in a permanent vegetative state, can take up valuable hospital beds for those who do want to get better. If they do not want to live, then they should not be allowed to take the beds and care of those that do. Long term palliative care for the terminally ill is a huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources. Why waste these precious resources on someone who has expressed a desire to die, when they could be improving the life of someone who wants to live? In addition, these resources could be re-allocated to further the research of the specific disease the patient is suffering in order to allow future generations to either not have the disease or increase the quality level of care for future patients of this disease by alleviating the symptoms of the disease at the very least. In addition, if the patient is an organ donator and the organs are healthy, it may save up several lives which are ultimately invaluable. working in the care system with people with dementia i have to say in many cases its cruel to keep them alive, we are kinder to our pets when so ill. This is an awful disease which takes any quality of life away, One lady i know has been bed ridden for 5 years unable to communicate , move her limbs or anything if the nazis had done this to people it would be a war crime. This is not about god or any other belief its about common sense. Everyone should have the right to say while they are still of good mind if they get this or another illness at a certain stage they have their life ended, What i see every day is slow often distressing painful deaths which is no more than cruelty,we really have to change the way we think
No because…
Just because beds in hospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die! Some can be cared for at home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would we draw the line? Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their lives anyway? I think that to describe palliative care as a “huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources” is rather harsh! I’m not sure that families of the terminally ill would agree with you there.
Terminally ill means terminally ill. This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will die eventually regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy. This time and money could be used to help others or cure others who aren’t mortally wounded or diseased. The rebuttal presupposes that an individual needs to wait for a hypothetical existence of a treatment being developed on an assumption that decisions that are finalized is not a justification for terminating a patient’s life at one’s explicit consent. If decisions made in your life were to be stagnated each and every time in order for an opportunity to arise everytime, the basis for this principle would not be a good one at the very least. Wait one day, wait one week, wait one month, we’ll stay back and see. An indecisiveness for something which might not exist within one’s lifetime would make a claim for which things ought to be reversible or decisions ought to be remade in order for things to be “controlled” in a manner. In this respect, of the practice of “Euthanasia”, death is the ultimate goal of avoidance and thus a finalized decision of upholding pain until the very last minute of life in respect to waiting for a treatment outweighs the ultimate outcome of death. The opposition makes a claim that reversibility of a decision that may be regretted later due to it being finalized is better on these grounds, however, if life was controllable in all aspects and under all possible circumstances, we were able to scroll back on our decisions, what meaningful would arise out of the circumstances for which our decisions are made on? What would the product of our actions, time and energy be? Aren’t these decisions philosophically what identify us as who we are even to the extent of a life or death situation? Also, even if a cure was possible, what complications will arise thereafter? What if the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has already lived a long healthy life? It cannot be justified to deem that waiting for something which might or might not exist in a future to occur outweighs the prospect of pain. Wait for a miracle “cure”, wait for a revolutionary science “discovery” to solve our problems, wait for a technological “innovation”…this line of thought may be wise in some situations but not necessarily in the case of Euthanasia.
The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts the possibility of new treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.
If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms often have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation. It is not as if they are really ‘living’ during this time; they are merely waiting to die. They should have the right to avoid this kind of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way. Appeal to “naturalism” is a very bad argument. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid having rain fall on us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to live a civilized life where we do not simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the “natural conclusion” of our actions. Suffering may a part of the human condition and it can be argued to be useful in preventing us from self-destructive habits, physical dismemberment or physiological damage due to negligence of the body, etc. However, does that justify that we ought to endure a pointless pain just because it must be part of life’s experience? Just because life is unfair doesn’t mean we should start treating others unfairly, or just because sex is a part of the human experience, that we have an obligation to perform intercourse. Also, if an argument of biological existence is made, then why is it limited to humans in the treatment of this manner? What is the difference between existence and living? Do people want to live in a state where they cannot progress, breathe, talk, hear, see, suffer from paralysis and slowly die? People do want to live, and merely existing is not enough. If we just had to exist, then why do we need a spectrum of other human experiences? Why do not we just limit ourselves to sleep, eat, reproduce, etc? There is more to life than existing in such a state.
There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life’s experience. Also medication can be improved to help a person’s quality of life and make their deaths as humane as possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are still biologically existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its natural conclusion. i think that it is our fate and nothing happens in theis world just like that for no reason. Everything in this world happen for a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she may not realise it. You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good thing for him or her ?? Bu toyu never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree that murder is something really bad and is not allowed so how come killing a person is the right thing?? Even if that person is suffering.What would you call it? Wouldn’t you call it killing. I will say that life is something complicated. It is not something that we could ever realise and understand 100 percent but each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone would die i definitly don’t have the choice to choose whether to kill that person or not even if he or she is suffering. Maybe yes a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering and have a relaxed life but sometimes and mostly always things don’t always turn out to be exactly like what we want. So I think it depends on how a person believes in God if he or she have faith in God then they will know that this is the will of God and will take it. We can’t say that there is a life with no suffering each and every person in his life have suffered in their life but it is how you deal with them that matters and not to run away because you’re afraid to face them or afraid that you would suffer because they alwaus say that you will always face your biggest fears in your life. So i would never kill a person and take the blame for it my entire life as i might someday sit alone and ask myself a question, did i kill my mother??
Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by the fact that suicide is legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives unaided. Legalising euthanasia would redress this balance. Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime. Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path, where they live, whether to bear children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide for themselves whether they die in a hospital or in their own home? Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off dead or alive? Their disease makes them so crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. A quote from The Independent in March 2002 stated that “So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions” [[ The Independent” Editiorial Make euthansia available for those who can choose it http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/make-euthanasia-available-for-those-who-can-choose-it-653034.html Accessed 03.09]]. Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary restraints on human rights are strongly discouraged. The opposition makes an arguement of inclination. However, it ought to be rejected that people, intuitions or legal entities should advocate the death of an individual. The life an individual rests in the considerations of the consequences of an individual’s actions. If we deny them this right, we make a claim that we own their life. We own the product of their time, energy and utility. This is something we must never fall into. Although it may be said from a financial sense, things aren’t good; we do attempt to put human life in an invaluable scale. It may be said that human beings are precious for various reasons, but the value of an individual’s life can never be determined by the state, another individual or entity. Even though life insurances are in place, the individual’s self-assigned worth is what gives the individual its own worth for its very own existence.
The right to choose is not something which our legal system has “accepted” we all have. This is far from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable offence – it is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of society. Furthermore the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Diane Pretty that a person does not has a recognised right to die as stated in this quote: “No right to die, whether at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority could be derived.” [[ BBC Online News “British woman denied right to die” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1957396.stm%5D%5D Unfortunately giving any sort of ‘right to chose’ also denies a right to choose for others. If Euthanasia is allowed then people who are terminally ill, critically injured or simply old may well feel compelled to choose and option they don’t really want to take. If Euthanasia is allowed in some cases these people whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a lot of money may well feel that they are not worth the cost of keeping them alive. This is not something we would want anyone to feel as in essence it takes away their freedom of choice on the matter.
A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste away, appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs, having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Those suffering with Huntington’s Disease develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational thought and poor concentration. Involuntary movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a shadow of their former self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a mother, father, brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last wish.
Even if their relatives may be suffering from watching their loved one’s condition detiriorate, they have no right to either decide or put pressure on a person to end their own life because of their own sufffering. Just as it may be the individuals right to die it is also the right of the individuals right to “rage against the dieing of the light” with their support of their family so to speak. While it may be an ‘agony to watch a loved one deteriorate’ many will also want to spend as long as possible with their loved ones, and more than likely a family will be split on the matter meaning that the views of the family would have to have no impact on the matter.
When a person is sick, there a chance that a contagious agent exists within the host. The longer the duration that the individual is kept alive, it may increase the risk of others being affected by the disease if the individual is not handled properly.
isn’t that what a hospital has i mean many people are sick and have diseases which are contagious but they try to get cured that’s why they go to hospitals. This is not a reason for not keeping them alive because what if they actually get cured and got the chance to start a new life. I don’t think that it will REDUCE the spread of diseases becasue there are other people in the hospital that may suffer from different diseases which may be contagious right? so does it stop on terminally ill people that they have a contagious disease that’s why they should be killed??
At the core of a legalized physician assisted suicide (PAS) system is the principal that medical ethics should be governed and regulated by the professionals instead of lawmakers. A PAS system puts the expertise of the doctor and the experience of the patient at the forefront of the issue and views both perspectives rightly as the most credible in a given situation. The law cannot adapt to the specificity and multitude of ethical problems that arise on a situational basis. The law can only take into account circumstances that it foresees and can elaborate on. The highly personal and situational nature of this issue deems it insufficient for legislation, which exists outside the realm of the personal. The foundation of medical ethics relies upon the understanding of the consent (when applicable) of the patient to the procedure and the discretion, judgment, and experience of the medical profession to whom the patient has entrusted their care. The basis of good and ethical health and health systems relies upon the integrity of this. [[http://www.ur.umich.edu/9697/May20_97/artcl10.htm]]
Laws are codifications of what morals exist in a society. Side Opposition wonders how exactly ‘Medical Ethics’ would be defined in the status quo anywhere in the world if these things were not defined through the law. Furthermore, most nations have ways in which the law can in fact be changed, thus giving law the ability to adapt to the specificity and multitude of problems that do exist in regards to health care. Also, without the law then attempts to even test a society with PAS wouldn’t exists anyway. Simply put, the law is what safeguards patients, doctors, and everyone else in the medical field, anywhere. And still, any change in health care can directly affect not just what humans can do, but how humans think about being human (and, therefore, what rights and obligations humans should have). As issues of between medical ethics and the law come into play the importance of prudent use of law to protect health and safety becomes central. Finally, issues of social justice and resource allocation are presented more starkly in the medical care context than in any other context. [[http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/health/index.htm]]
To ensure that a system maintains the highest ethical standards, numerous safeguards will be implemented. To begin, The patient’s condition must be either a terminal one (meaning incurable) with no hope of recovery and death imminent (Two doctors must overlook the case to verify the diagnosis and prognosis) or suffering irreversible medical conditions that cause them suffering in ways they can no longer tolerate. Secondly, Euthanasia can only be undertaken at the request or with the permission of the patient (Oregon provides a good example by requiring two written requests at least 15 days apart, an oral request and other safeguards to ensure the capability of the patient to make such a serious decision. Also, two doctors must verify the decision-making capability of the patient.) Lastly, Doctors must perform the task of providing means and administering but only if necessary, otherwise the patient will self-administer. [[http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year1.pdf]]
In the medical profession, there is an unavoidable problem dealing with the prognosis of ‘terminal’ patients. Many problems arise when physicians try to diagnose a disease that will be terminal or try to recognize the terminal phases of an illness. For example, a person who has recently been infected with HIV can be considered to have a condition that will be terminal, yet 10% to 17% of such persons are still without sequelae of immunodeficiency at 20 years. Cardiac disease is the leading cause of death in the United States [34], but persons with atherosclerotic disease are not considered to be terminally ill even though their deaths may occur at any moment. This has much to do with why PAS is very hard to implement. These definitions will differ not just in the US, but in other nations around the world. At the point we recognize this to be true, proposition would be granting the right to PAS for some people, and yet not for others. This is why we look to palliative care, because, at the very least, the standards are clear. [[http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/126/2/146]] Furthermore, we say that patients who are terminally ill may have a single disease process (such as a brain tumor) that will, in and of itself, cause death; they may have a disease (such as leukemia) that weakens them to the point where a second condition (such as pneumonia) may overwhelm and kill them; or they may have a combination of diseases, each of which makes the other incurable (for example, severe lung disease and cardiac disease). The prognosis will alter as the patient makes decisions about treatment of the primary disease or intercurrent illnesses. But let’s talk about Oregon: In the first year Oregon voters put PAS into law, 15 patients had undergone PAS. However, only four of the candidates had psychological or psychiatric consultations. Eleven others did not. Since the way in which PAS has been provided in a current system has not been shown to be systematic, it has shown to not be fair either. Surgeons don’t operate without informing a patient of all their options, or doctors do not prescribe prescriptions without allowing for other options, yet PAS physicians have been able to let some patients undergo consulting while others don’t have as much help. Because of this, PAS is inherently unfair on the basis that some patients will have access to more knowledge than others – this is important because all patients are attempting to make the same choice.
Those who have terminal disease that are less common often face more suffering. Without the lobbies and charities behind diseases like lung cancer, brain cancer, etc., palliative care cannot provide the same Quality of Life that other better-funded palliative measures do. [“This study suggests that patients with end stage COPD have significantly impaired quality of life and emotional well being which may not be as well met as those of patients with lung cancer, nor do they receive holistic care appropriate to their needs.” Those in the third world are the most discriminated against in the area of palliative care. They are denied basic analgesics because of their economic situation. “Morphine is a cheap, safe analgesic, yet most patients in developing countries are denied access to this drug.” Palliative care is also weakened in the Third World by “the lack of effective models for…delivery.” The palliative care options are often limited to those available to the family. Though physicians may be available, long-term palliative care is often ineffective as the physicians must respond to a large area of need and the constant support is left up to the family of the patient, who are limited in resources and training. Minority groups are less likely to be given palliative care. Dalits, African Americans, and other minority groups are systemically given poor health care coverage and treatment. The result is that they face more emergency care rather than preventative and more inpatient non-palliative deaths. Without the option for PAS, minority groups often face alienated deaths in the institutions that have alienated them.In the case of the Roma people, both an ethnic and a lifestyle minority are discriminated against without access to PAS. Because of their nomadic way of life, the European healthcare system allows them to fall through the many cracks. When they plead for the right to die, they are denied PAS on “ethical” grounds. The European healthcare system, like many worldwide, is inherently biased to those who have a lifestyle of the majority, i.e. with a permanent residence. [[http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/55/12/1000]] [[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295230&pageindex=1]] [[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295230&pageindex=2#page ]] [[http://www.dalitsolidarity.org/health_overview.php]] [[http://books.google.com/books?id=XKQ-OV72P7YC&lpg=PA153&ots=GyTOY7p0K8&dq=palliative%20care%20blacks&pg=PA153 ]] [[http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/system_frustrates_terminally/ ]]
A inequality in palliative care in places around the world is not enough to justify its circumvention. If anything, the option of PAS not only decreases the growth of the success some palliative care has been able to prevent, but it will prevent it’s growth in the future as well. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is merely a part of the debate about improving end-of-life care. It cannot be viewed as a quick and easy fix, or a way to protect patients from inadequate care arrangements. Too many people still suffer needlessly, often because doctors and families just do not know how to serve people who are dying. The main problem lies with a lack of knowledge. Many suffer because doctors fail to provide adequate medication for pain. To legalize physician-assisted suicide would make real reform, such as better pain control, less likely. And ultimately hurts the growth of the medical industry. Without the reform of pain medication, patients end up with no prospects to live well while dying. In this scenario, making suicide an option is not offering a genuine choice but instead forcing a decision on the patient who again loses rights under this plan the affirmative have presented. [[http://www.growthhouse.org/mortals/mort2526.html]]
In addition, if there are those whose death is inevitable who would like to be put out of their suffering early, it means that doctors will have a chance to examine their vital organs to see if they can be donated. At later stages of many terminal illnesses, organs are severely weakened and, in some cases, failing – it may not be possible to use them at that point. This will help alleviate the long waiting list there is for organ donations. Thus permitting assisted suicide through euthanasia will not only put the victim out of his/her suffering earlier, but may also help save more lives. More than 102,389 men women and children are waiting for organ transplants in the US alone with only 14,203 eligible donors. PAS is an effective and ethical avenue to decrease this vast and fatal gap. [[http://www.lifelineofohio.org/donation/resources/statistics.aspx]]
Regardless of whether or not a patient decides to under PAS, they have already made the decision to be an organ donor, or not, well before the procedure. There has not been a correlation shown between the number of people willing to be an organ donor if they underwent PAS (From the Oregon studies). We would also say that a push for organs would decrease the amount of care given even with a PAS. Because now the focus is not on the patient but on their organs. In the status quo, people who are registered donors are at times kept on life support against (against their will, something we though, the proposition did not like) to determine the organs sustainability for transplant. Finally, if patients who have been cleared for PAS under the guidelines set out by the proposition, then they are already terminally ill, and thus, have failing organs already, not in good enough condition for transplant. [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/03/AR2007040302062.html]]
When Michelangelo was asked how he created his masterpiece David, he simply said “I saw David through the stone and I simply chipped away everything that was not David”. Since we on the proposition are on a similar pursuit as Michelangelo in creating a masterpiece, lets first look at what supporting physician-assisted suicide is not: 1) Supporting PAS is not supporting the end of palliative care. The opposition has stated time and time again how palliative care can be a good thing but just needs reform. This offers no direct clash with our plan and our line of argumentation throughout the entire debate. We recognize that palliative care as a viable option for patients, but we also have pointed out some of the pitfalls of palliative care and how PAS can be a benefit to those who have to suffer in these pits in some countries currently. Reform can be achieved in both PAS and palliative care under our plan. Fundamentally, we respect the preference of the patient to choose whichever option. The proposition is on the side of options and a death with dignity for citizens. We denounce the self-proclaiming moral arbiters that would force citizens to die only on the terms that they deem “natural” and “right” in the face of intense suffering and unbearable pain being felt by the patient. 2) Supporting PAS is not supporting the disproportional killing of coerced poor people and stigmatized groups. While this concern is certainly respectable, it is based simply on predicative fears. These fears have been discredited with the empirical evidence that we have provided from countries and states in which PAS is already supported. While we support these groups getting access to PAS, we certainly aren’t forcing them and neither is any outside party, as the data shows. 3) Supporting PAS is not supporting new cultural norms or ideologies that declare some lives are ‘not worth living’. What PAS promotes is that citizen’s are in control of the choice of how they want to end their lives. This idea finds opposition not in the prevailing attitudes of the people, but in the ideologies that someone or something should be in control other than the actual individual, whether it be the government, religion or someone’s definition of nature. It is time to break free from the shackles of these ideals into a world where citizens are individually empowered by supporting the right-to-die. Day by day more and more governments and citizens are recognizing this right and are strongly disavowing the antiquated positions that our opposition has argued for. Now that we have removed what supporting assisted suicide is not, let’s look at what it is: 1) Supporting PAS is supporting a system that addresses the highly personal and situational manner of this issue while enforcing ethical safeguards that protect against any form of abuse to the utmost degree possible. Both sides agree that laws can indeed change, but when should these laws should change is where the debate lies. We refuse to maintain archaic laws in which the consent of the patient and expertise of the doctor is largely ignored. We believe that to support PAS is supporting a flexible and ethical system that can address this complex situation with the patient and doctor in mind and at the forefront. 2) Supporting PAS is supporting the idea that it is the state’s role to create conditions where citizens can make optimal decisions for themselves amongst viable options. We do not support an atmosphere where the state destroys options and makes the decision for its citizens, especially on the most sacred thing a person has, life. 3) Supporting PAS is supporting a system that not only ends lives more humanely, but saves lives as well. We are not advocating a vast increase in quantity but rather a quality increase in organ donation. We have stated that if these terminally ill patients are forced to live prolonged lives, vital organs will become increasingly weaker even if the disease does not directly affect specific organs. The system allows organ donation to be completed more efficiently, effectively and even at all in some cases. The proposition offers quality of life over just mere quantity, choice on how to preserve this quality, and a way to preserve life of many people on organ donation waiting lists. We strongly believe we offer a far better system for these very reasons, masterpiece or not.
Patients that are in comas and have not indicated that they wish to die have the right to continue thier lives until the natural end. Who are we to say that they should die when it is convenient to us? That should be left unto God to decide. This point should be erased. The debate specifically says “Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?”. What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).
Coma patients are not ‘living until their natural end’ because modern medicine has developed so we can support them artificially. Perhaps it was God’s will that they die, and we are interefering in this plan by treating them? This point should be erased. The debate specifically says “Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?”. What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).
There are strong proponents on both sides of the debate for and against euthanasia. The word euthanasia comes from two Greek words, ôeuö meaning good, and thanatos meaning death. Proponents of euthanasia believe it is everyone’s right to die at a time of their own choosing, and in a manner of their own choosing, when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to the bitter end. Opponents argue that euthanasia cannot be a matter of self-determination and personal beliefs, because it is an act that requires two people to make it possible and a complicit society to make it acceptable . They consider euthanasia the equivalent of murder, which is against the law everywhere in civilized society.So, we sould maintain the respect for human life in a secular pluralistic society
The first argument was removed. An appeal to a dictionary or a definition does not make it right or justified in its position. However, it may be speculated or conceived that it is not murder because the premeditated advancement of death by a person of another has been consented to in principle thereby the choice being made is a deliberate one for which one’s right in its very own nature permits the condition to be moral. Secondly for describing euthansia the Germans use the term Sterbehilfe which means “help to die” so while the person and maybe society may be complicit in the “killing of a person” they are accessories and not the actual agents of the killing as they are helping a person to die rather than determining that a person should die, something that would be viewed as murder [[Collins lanugage dictionary]] .
Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human being, A principle stated in the Quaran “[2.28] [Allah] will cause you to die and again bring you to life, then you shall be brought back to Him.” This surah states that if a creator has created an individual than it p.b.u.h will decide whether you live or die and you can not take matters into your own hands.[[ University of Michigan “The Koran” http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=life&q2=&q3=&amt=0&size=more%5D%5D . This principle must be safeguarded by law, as moral absolutes of this kind are necessary for a functioning legal system.
While religious morality may be precise on who sets decides when a person dies secular values also recognise if a person is suffering unncessarilly they should be helped to eliminate that suffering. Futhermore a person may well be non religious and resent the imposition of religious or secular values on them, values which they may not belive in. [[ Dr Adams “Personal Story- Dignity in Dying” http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/personal-stories/uk/south-west/exeter/dr-adams-story-33.html Accessed 1.06.2009]] Additionally if this arguement is extended, certain individuals pick and choose biblical scripture (not wiping out the land of a certainr ace) or selectively identify parts as something obselete (i.e. agricultural practices). If an individual does this, the individual believes that there is a morality outside of religious morality above the standard for which the biblical or context in which religion takes place and thus it is moot whether the bible says so or not.
The problem that I have always had with euthanasia is that terminally ill patients may choose to die through feelings of guilt. They may feel guilty about the burden that they are putting on their families and choose to die for this reason alone.
Whatever their reasons, a person should be allowed to do as they see fit. It is their life and they have the right to choose how and when it ends.
The prestigious position of doctors could quite easily be abused if euthanasia were to become legalised. A prime example of this would be the late Dr Harold Shipman, who killed between 215 and 260 elderly women[[ Bonnie Malkin et al ” Harold Shipman in dictionary of biography” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]] Vulnerable, ill people trust their doctor and if he confidently suggested a course of action, it could be hard to resist. A patient and his family would generally decide in favour of euthanasia according to the details fed to them by their doctor. These details may not even be well founded: diagnoses can be mistaken and new treatment developed which the doctor does not know about. Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die? On the contrary, the majority of doctors would make well-informed, responsible and correct decisions, but for those few like Harold Shipman, they can get away with murder, undetected, for 23 years.[[ Bonnie Malkin et al ” Harold Shipman in dictionary of biography” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]]
Harold Shipman committed his crimes when euthanasia was illegal, which illustrates that psychopaths can commit crimes whatever the legal situation. Legalising euthanasia would have no effect on the 0.000001% of society who do this sort of thing. In countries where euthanasia is currently legal, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, strict legal guidelines are in place to ensure that the process does not include such problems. All patients who request euthanasia require the diagnoses of at least two doctors to verify the terminal nature of their illness, and undergo psychological examination by these doctors and often other experts to examine the reasons for their choice. It is not a situation of “Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die?”; it is one of two medical professionals deciding whether the legal parameters allow them to enact the patient’s wishes. [[ Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs”A Guide to the Dutch Termination of life on Request and Assisted Suicide (review procedures) Act – April 2002″ p3 http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/en-pdf/faq-2008/faq-euthanasie-2008-en.pdf%5D Accessed on 01.06.09]] It is worth noting that, at the moment, doctors can effectively use euthanasia anyway. Firstly, under the “doctrine of double effect”, a doctor is allowed to give a patient, upon their request, a dose of painkilling medication which as a secondary effect speeds up the death of the patient. [[ Alison McIntyre “Doctrine of Double Effect” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ Accessed 01.06.09 ]]Secondly, all patients have both the right to refuse treatment, and the ability to make a “living will”, which doctors are compelled to consider if the patient is unable to express their wishes during illness. [[ Direct gov “Government, citizens and rights- How to make a living will-http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/Preparation/DG_10029429 01.06.09]]
Ethical safe-guards may not be achieved in the time frame allotted by the affirmative. Oregon physicians, as well as the physicians of Netherland, have been given authority without being in a position to exercise it responsibly. They are expected to inform patients that alternatives are possible without being required to be knowledgeable enough to present those alternatives in a meaningful way, or to consult with someone who is. Meaning that physicians or mental health professionals are advising patients without a complete understanding of end-of-life care available to them, which again goes against the Hippocratic Oath all medical personal must take. They are expected to make decisions about involuntariness without having to see those close to the patient who may be exerting a variety of pressures, from subtle to coercive. They are expected to do all of this without necessarily knowing the patient for longer than 15 days, which is clearly not long enough to fully gain perspective on a person. Since physicians cannot be held responsible for wrongful deaths if they have acted in good faith, substandard medical practice is encouraged, physicians are protected from the con-sequences, and patients are left unprotected while believing they have acquired a new right, and ultimately defeats the purpose of legalizing PAS. [[http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54071?pageNumber=5]]
We believe this Argument and the rebuttal for the proposition’s “Ethical Safeguards” argument can be clubbed together, and they have both been responded to together in “Rebuttal: Ethical Safeguards”
The opposition stands with critics of PAS who have found that once assisted suicide is accepted as an available option for competent terminally ill adults, it may be permitted for ever-larger groups of persons, including the non-terminally ill, those whose quality of life is perceived to be diminished by a physical disability, persons whose pain is emotional instead of physical, and so forth. Critics point to the fact that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, as is done in the Netherlands, does not prevent violation of procedures (e.g., failure to report) which occurs frequently in the medical profession, or abuse (e.g., involuntary euthanasia). It is further contended by the opposition that adequate safeguards are not possible. For example, requiring written requests to be repeated over a period of time, such as 15 days, and witnessed by two unrelated witnesses while simultaneously involving at least two physicians AND a psychiatrist’s or psychologist’s examination is unrealistic. Persons at the end of their lives typically have neither the energy nor the ability to meet such conditions. In addition, the option of assisted suicide for mentally competent, terminally ill people could give rise to a new cultural norm of an obligation to speed up the dying process and subtly or not-so-subtly influence end-of-life decisions of all sorts. Which ultimately costs the patient one of the three inalienable rights, the pursuit of Life. [[http://www.apa.org/pi/eol/arguments.html]]
1) Many people who choose PAS and are not terminally ill have a physical injury or disease attached to their emotional pain. For instance, Daniel James [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4969423.ece]] was paralyzed from a rugby accident and Chantal Sebire [[http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1918252520080319]] whom had a swollen tumor in her sinuses that made her face severely disfigured. These people felt like prisoners to their own existence, their quality of life was in fact diminished not “perceived”. We believe no person or government has a right to keep these people entangled in a web of suffering. We recognize that people can continue their lives even in dire situations, but we believe the government should not force them to continue a life of suffering. 2) The opposition says that a “violation of procedures” can occur, such as a failure to report. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where the medical practice can be absolutely infallible. This is more an argument against any sort of medical procedure, life saving or life ending because these problems are not unique to any medical procedure, whether it be perceived as simple or complex . Involuntary euthanasia is not a problem with our safeguards and able and competent doctors in place. Any doctor that would commit involuntary euthanasia with any form of consent from their patient would do so even without a legal PAS system because they have no regard for ethics. 3) Firstly, it seems the opposition is unclear as to why they object to the conditions that need to be fulfilled; because they are not stringent enough or because they are too stringent to be fulfilled by people who wish to exercise this right? We are not exactly sure how our safeguards can be deemed “not possible” and “unrealistic” when they are the same safeguards put in place in the state of Oregon, which we have already stated in our opening arguments.[[http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/127.html]] This is not a chimerical proposition as the opposition has dismissed it as but in fact an actual and real life working system that has been around for 11 years. [[http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/09/washington_states_assistedsuic.html]] This system, under which in fact the right to physician assisted suicide has been exercised by hundreds of patients since the law was passed in Oregon. [[http://www.wrd.state.or.us/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf]] 4) Rights do not demand to be exercised. We support the inalienable pursuit of Life but we do not support force-feeding life to citizens whom declare that they no longer want to participate in this pursuit for the ethically justifiable reasons stated in our case. We also grant citizen’s freedom of speech but does that mean they we should ban silence? Where governments allow dissent, it would be ludicrous to demand that all citizens must dissent in order to exercise their right. Instead, any theory of rights must protect the exercising of rights as well as the citizen’s choice to not participate, to not exercise their right. The right to life has to be forfeited at some point, and we support the right for our citizens to choose when they want to forfeit it. We see this in the status quo already – governments have ceased to consider suicide a crime. Why should assisted suicide for terminally ill patients be any different?
A patient may accurately judge their current quality of life to be unacceptable, but adequate care would always increase their quality of life to the point where they would reconsider. In addition, there is also fear that accepting such thoughts as legitimate, rather than simply understandable, could comfort an ideology that considers some lives as being ‘not worth living’, even if the person living this life sees value in it. PAS limits the view of the patient to a mere biological mass. Palliative care providers emphasize compassion, and the will to care for the whole human being. The importance of caring for the whole individual rather than for an organ is underlined, as is the importance of interactions between psychological and physical suffering. For both PAS and palliative care, the worst evil is a poor quality of life. For palliative care providers, however, the worst evil is a poor quality of life that is an obstacle to valuing the time that is left, rather than seeking to destroy the natural life-cycle. [[http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54071?pageNumber=5]]
1) Legalizing physician assisted suicide does not mean that it will be forced on all suffering patients. The proposition strongly feels about the freedom of choice, but the opposition would like to eliminate options and funnel suffering people down a path they feel is the right one. 2) The only ideology that this supports is that a citizen’s life and its value is actually in the hands of and defined by citizens instead of some separate entity. We don’t see any sort of logical connection with this slippery slope that they would like us to ride down. 3) We are not advocating an end to palliative care; we believe both systems can co-exist. What we recognize is that there are some huge pitfalls in palliative care (See: “Discrimination in Palliative Care and how PAS can end it” argument) and that PAS can fill these ethically and efficiently. Stating why palliative care may be a good thing doesn’t address why a PAS should not also be a viable option for patients. 4) We don’t believe that anything that is “natural” is always inherently good and anything that is unnatural is inherently bad, as it seems the opposition believes. If we are to agree with this line of argumentation then any sort of medication, treatment and surgery, such as chemotherapy, that can save lives should not be exist either because they also destroy this “natural life-cycle” that our opposition has defined for all of humanity. We don’t believe that they are as omniscient as they seem to think and feel that they are trespassing into very dangerous territory when they attempt to define just how people should die, and force conformation to that definition.
I really like this article as it gives the pros and cons of mercy killing. I will be referencing this article for a school paper I’m writing .
Who is the author?
Yes. Because It can Save Lives & Preserve the Dignified Orderb of International Health Among Others, Especially Our Own Children! My Mother Died of Both TuberCulosis & Liver Cirrhosis In Combination! She Spat Endless Blood & Making a Terrible Mess in My House & Disturbing All Neighbors & Relatives, With All the Expense On My Own Back ALONE! Since I Was Not Yet Married, but Planned To be ….It May Sound Selfish, but I Truly Value the Safety Of Both My Own Health & Of My Own Neighbors! Now Nobody Wants To Catch TB! So I Used An Injection with ****** (I Am Not Allowed to Post This For Security Purposes) To My own Mother, 7 She Then Died A Happy Quiet & Dignified Death! My Neighbors Did Not Like the & Approve the Idea, But I Must Strongly Approve that it Was THe BEST SECURITY MEASUR OF DEFENSE FOR OWN HEALTH`S SAKE! In Order Not to Be CONTAMINATED From the Disease! Since Additionaly * WE LIVED IN A RUARAL PROVINCE & DID NOT HAVE ANY DOCTORS OR HOSPITALS NEARBY AT ALL!
It should be allowed. Everyone has a right to die.
How can we allow a person to suffer immense pain, and agony; to live each bit of his life cursing his fate? Why is it said that they have to suffer it all?????
In this I really disagree because life is one of the best things that God created.He created us to his image and likeness and in this it’s is a wonderful gift from God.We must thank God for this very wonderful and Beutiful Gift that he has given to us…Thank you very much God
you spelt beautiful wrong.
Give me proof that God exists
Ok tell me how can everything can everything come to being without any creator
As we have no right to choose our birth ,so is our death also the matter of obligation?!I believe that depending on the patient’s illness & age, he has the right to choose, life or death?! It’s so personal.Why should he tolerate pain and suffer?! Just to live a few more days or months. So what?!!!
Surely anyone with compassion who has watched the agony of a friend or relative dying in front of them, sometimes over many days or weeks would agree with euthanasia?? After all, it is usually only the difference between a few more mls of morphine!!! We only keep people in a “liveable” state (called palliative care!) with morphine and having watched my own mother trying to die over this past week I have nothing but contempt for people who are insistent it should be God’s will or the person should keep going until the very bitter end. Shame on you! You obviously enjoy watching someone suffer. I would not and never have allow any animal I have owned to suffer this fate.
I take care of my dad who has an end stage type of dementia. He can’t walk. He can’t talk. He can hardly keep his eyes open to see anymore. He might be living with just dementia, bit I’m living in a never-ending nightmare of taking care of someone that doesn’t know who I am. I don’t love this but because someone says euthanasia is illegal, i am living in slavery. Why is it ok for me to end the suffering of a pet bit I have to suffer and let my father suffer. Maybe drugs will ease his pain but is quality of life just living without pain? He can’t do anything meaningful and he doesn’t remember anything he does anyway. This is bullshit, the longer I deal with him, smothering him with a pillow seems more and more tempting. Then you can all complaint about my quality of life as I live rent free with free food in a prison cell that is being paid for with your tax dollars.
My husband and I talked alot about end of life when he was diagbnosed with Frontal Temporal Disease, from a mutation in the gene that resulted in 2 of his syblings dying from ALS. More research indicated that there had been 7 generations of the diease in his family. As we prepared our legal and financial documents and our living wills, he did not want to be kept alive by any means if he could not care for himself and he never wanted to be in a nursing home. He wanted to die quickly. Unfortunately he was healthy and strong but with a brain that was detiorating very quickly to the point where I could not care for him at home alone or with help since I was physically challenged myself. Most of the time his brain was not focused and communications was non existent; however there were occassions where he would plead for his life to be over. As he lost more of his physical abilities and his ability to walk and talk and his body was forgetting how to swallow you could see the pleading in his eyes. I know this is not how he wants his life to end but there are no options but to sit and watch him wadte away. This is just not right for someone who wants the optopn to end their life!
I think mercy killing should be allowed in my country. Having 2 alzheimer’s patients in hands is not easy. The symptoms are getting worse day by day. No medication can cure alzheimer’s nor at least stop it. We have to spend about 1 million per year for medication, and we dont take them to a nursing home. One is bedridden, cannot talk, and needs to be feeded. Another poops on the stairs or in front of the house. In this case, I would consider euthanasia as a good choice. You know, it does not mean we dont love the two of our family, but they will live in this world and can do nothing to make themselves happy. They cannot even remember themselves or what they just did 5 mins ago! Do you see any good on spending 1 million a year on this incurble disease? Or we pay just to keep them with us?
When there is nothing more to live for, physician assisted suicide should be allowed. What is the big deal? It is as simple as that. It is a solution not a problem.
I just think that they or their close family/close friends should have proof as to prevent any killings that were not wanted by the patient and his or her’s family/close friends.
Whether you agree or disagree, it doesn’t matter. People will take their own life with or without help. Let common sense prevail. We should not judge others people’s right to choose. Do we not allow women to choose to abort or not? It is the same thing. A life is a life, we can’t have it both ways and we must be consistent.
We accept mercy killing for animals but we do not care of the suffering and economic disaster of not allowing people to terminate his/her life
let others die in your hands not with your hands
thanks for the details
In Natures Law nothing is good or evil, it is how we interpret the situation. Euthanasia is just another part of natural occurring which happens to all sort of living beings. Just because we humans interpret it differently doesn’t mean such occurring shouldn’t happen.
We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.
- Essay Database >
- Essay Examples >
- Essays Topics >
- Essay on Law
Good Euthanasia Mercy Killing Or Murder Argumentative Essay Example
Type of paper: Argumentative Essay
Topic: Law , Crime , Life , Death , Nursing , Euthanasia , Religion , Medicine
Words: 3750
Published: 02/20/2020
ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS
Many people believe that we now live in a world where we can make decisions – women are allowed to choose if and when they want to get pregnant so they take pills to ensure they have their choice. However just like with birth control, there is a lot of debate on euthanasia. Many people are of the opinion that euthanasia should not be allowed. Euthanasia is the process of allowing someone dies willingly and has being mercy killing by many. Unfortunately it is the killing that gets many people riled up as they are of the opinion that lives should not under any circumstances be taken. I am one of those people who agree with those who claim that there is nothing merciful about the taking of people’s lives and I will show in the pages below the problems with euthanasia. Many people have wondered if people on the brink of death can still make a choice and choose death and watch such a choice be acted upon. People have argued that they should be allowed to die in dignity as many of the people who go through with euthanasia usually have some debilitating and life threatening illness that they may think they have no cure over. They feel that allowing them to live in pain and agony for maybe six more months before they die is not life at all but greed by the ones they may be leaving behind who do not want to say goodbye. Proponents of euthanasia believe that it is immoral to force people to keep on living in suffering and pain when they would rather die with dignity. These proponents claim that since suicide is not yet considered a crime that euthanasia should not be as well. But there are many other proponents who are against the idea of euthanasia as they see it as murder. The religious groups believe that life in itself was given by God and only God can take it. There are also legal proponents who believe that euthanasia should not be allowed as they believe this leads people to take the lives of those who would otherwise have wanted to live.
The Legal Position
In most countries euthanasia is considered illegal although that has not stopped some doctors from practicing it still. In a country like the United Kingdom it is considered murder to practice euthanasia and as such it is illegal and culprits are liable to spend up to fourteen years behind bars. This does not change even if the doctor or medical practitioner was acting on the orders of the patient. The 1961 Suicide Act takes it a step further in the UK and stipulates that people who assist, counsel or aid someone in the taking of their lives is also liable to fourteen years imprisonment. The authorities however also decide the circumstances regarding to the person’s death when they are prosecuting cases on euthanasia. Many other countries have similar laws with regards euthanasia even though it may seem like the tide is turning as recent surveys have shown that up to 80% of the public believe that a terminally ill person should be allowed the decency to die with the doctor’s help. While euthanasia has picked up many titles along the way the end result is always death - whether it is active or passive euthanasia. As I have demonstrated above, different countries have different laws regarding euthanasia. The law sees doctors that practice passive euthanasia as different from those doctors who will abandon a patient to die. Although the law states that any euthanasia that occurs without the consent of the patient should be treated as a criminal offense, which is to say that the patient was not pressured into arriving at that decision. This is one of the biggest issues I have with euthanasia. If it were to be made legal, it will not be administered for the healthy but rather the weak and terminally ill. How easy will it be to convince people in this state that they are better off dying so that their loved ones may have closure? There are many people that have been given a very grim medical report who have gone on to achieve great things because they did not give up. The people who make it out alive from these kind of illnesses may be few and far between but if euthanasia kills a person that would otherwise have wanted to live out their lives, no matter how short that period of time is.
Ethical Issues
Euthanasia will always be compared against the religious, moral and ethical backdrop of the society. Most democratic countries accept the right to choose as a civil right. If this is the case, an issue like euthanasia has to be made by the individual itself and many of these people that have chosen euthanasia will not have made this choice if they were to make it by themselves. They would have preferred to go on living – no matter how short that life may be. Most religions are also against the taking of one’s life and euthanasia will always be seen as just that. Many religions that worship a supreme God believe that life was given to us by him and he alone can take that life. they claim that if you had no input in how or when your birth would be then you should not determine when your death would be. In taking your life or giving consent for one’s life to be taken from them is equal to that person in question taking the role of God upon themselves? It is clear that not everybody will believe in a God who gives life and watches over the life, people cannot deny the fact that everybody is unique with unique DNA and a life that cannot be copied. If indeed our lives are as precious as have been mentioned above, then why do we take these same lives. It therefore becomes the job of the society to stop people from short changing themselves through the taking of their lives.
Religion and Death
Death plays a very important role in the many different religions in the world and while these different religions treat death differently, most of them are adverse to the idea of euthanasia. The Christian religion believe that it is God who gives life and He too should be the one who takes life and that the so called mercy killing is actually murder and should be stopped. One of the most active advocates against euthanasia is the Roman Catholic Church who actually forbids it. They teach that people attached to the ailing should instead take care of them and nurture them in their dying days as opposed to finding a quick fix solution to their problem. Most religions that have a supreme God stick to His command when He says that we must not kill. In as much as people may look at euthanasia as ‘letting the patient die with dignity’ the bible has called this process death and frowns at it. Religion also sees humans as being special because they were created by God. If mankind is indeed special then they must be preserved by all means and not trivialized through the practice of euthanasia. While Christianity is adamant in its opinion that euthanasia should not be allowed, the eastern religions take on a different approach. These religions see death as being set free from mortal life. However they too are against harming other people and euthanasia falls into the second category. While religions like Hinduism and Buddhism see death as a process of the life cycle, shortening that life does interfere with this divine cycle and is therefore frowned upon. Ending one’s life before it naturally ends also interferes with ultimate liberation and what the said person will become in the afterlife. Many other religions have different reasons as to why they are against this sort of life ending procedure and as a result euthanasia has been a heavily debated topic. This doesn’t look like it will end any time soon.
The Hospice as an Alternative
Living with the terminally or seriously ill is a huge burden on the sick person and the caregiver. This pressure has seen to the rise of hospices being prepared for people who have a very short time to live where they are cared for and given palliative care. These centres do not try to prolong the life or even shorten it but instead they try to make it as stress free as possible for all the parties involved. The staffs at these centres help to enhance the quality of life of these people who can see and tell that they are not alone in their suffering but that there are many other people with similar or worse cases than theirs. These hospices help to ease the burden on the loved ones who had taken up the role of caretakers. It also reduces the resentment felt by the terminally ill patient towards their loved ones.
Personal Experience
For many years my grandmother has been suffering from depression and this depression began to make her physically ill. It got to a point where she had to survive on anti-depressants and because she hated how they made her feel she would deliberately not take them at times. Unfortunately for her situation when she was not taking her medications, she acted violent. During her last days she became increasingly ill and emancipated and this also became a burden on her children as well. Many times she had family watch her as the depression and many other illnesses that came about as a result. Staying at home and being looked after became hard on my mother because she was always a very energetic and busy woman and many of times she wished she was dead. As hard as it was to take care of her we did still do everything in our power till the day she just died normally. We knew that it was eventually going to be a losing battle but we were willing to keep her alive instead of the alternative choice of euthanasia. Whenever people wondered why we were punishing her by keeping her alive, we always said that the last four months of her life may have seen her have 110 bad days but the 10 good days was worth her being alive.
Euthanasia – A Global Issue
The world has become a global village with longevity of life seen as a global reality. This is due to the new and improved research, better medical facilities and healthier alternatives to life. in all this however, globalisation has not been able to stop death from happening and why some people face death and come out victorious, others suffer a long and difficult journey before they eventually die. People are said to be living not just because they are breathing but because of the quality of life they live. There are some illnesses that deprive people of that quality of life that was at one time or the other available to them. The people who say euthanasia should be allowed see euthanasia as a humane thing to do and not as murder (Gerald). Although I do not have data or a survey to back this statement, I do believe that most people would want a pain free death although not everyone will enjoy that benefit. Looking at the above one could almost believe that euthanasia is the right thing to do. In my life I have seen many things that may seem right at the start but halfway through I realise that I have made a grave mistake and then it would be too difficult to retrace my steps. Euthanasia is a touching subject because it has to do with life, it is not like a dress that you buy from the shops and on getting home realise that you don’t like it and you return it for a refund. Life especially that of a loved one should not be treated as a discarded or unwanted cloth. Is there anything like death with dignity or is death just death – a finality of life.
Proponents for Euthanasia
While there are people and organisations and even legislations that have been put up to stop euthanasia, there are those who believe that euthanasia should be allowed to thrive. The proponents of euthanasia believe that it is possible for euthanasia to be controlled and not abused even though it will be hard to have regulations in place that will prevent people from abusing euthanasia. They say it is just like the law and how it affects any crime (Neil 243). There may be laws in place to prevent crimes like fraud or theft or any other crime but still there will also be people that will go ahead and commit those crimes. The problem and the catch though is that no laws and regulations put in place will dissuade wicked people from pressuring vulnerable people to make the choice of death even though they may have wanted to live for a few days more. They however admit that it would be a better situation to create a structure for euthanasia as opposed to making no structure available. People being who they are will practise euthanasia whether it be made legal or not and the best way to minimize abuse would be to put structures in place. They have argued that this is a similar thing to the struggle for abortion. With structures put in place, vulnerable people will be able to be protected through these structures instead of just being unnecessarily pressured to choose euthanasia. How then would a good regulation look like? An effective regulation should take everything into consideration before deciding that euthanasia is the best option. In other words it should not be the first option but rather the last one. There are some parts of the world that have started practising such things on a reasonable scale. - Physician-assisted suicide was legalised in Oregon in 1998 under very severe conditions. For the first three years of its presences only about 2 people a month used euthanasia to end their lives. The process involved things like getting checked by a second physician who must also claim that the patient had less than six months to live and many requests for euthanasia must have been given. - While the Netherlands still considers euthanasia and assisted suicide as crimes, there are times doctors can be exempt from liability of crime. The Criminal Code Article of Netherlands has stipulated that if the patient that has made a voluntary request to die was suffering unendurable pain and is convinced that there is no other viable solution, then the doctor that assists that patient to die will not be liable of crime.
Problems with Euthanasia
There is the fear that euthanasia will be abused if it is allowed. Vulnerable and at risk patients will be pressured by people to end their lives. While I have shown that it is difficult to take care of any ailing person, forcing them to choose death instead of fight for their lives is wickedness. And many of them will be coerced into choosing death. I could give an example of two AIDS sufferers. The first one may have been abandoned as a result of their illness by all they love and hold dear and in a state of isolation choose death to end it all. However there is the other sufferer who is being pressured by present loved ones to end their life while all they may have wanted might have been the chance to spend every waking minute with these same loved ones. Allowing euthanasia will be a chance for it to be abused. People are created free and they enjoy the opportunity to live life free. Illness not only saps one of this freedom of life but it also saps the chance to live free of the loved ones who now have to care for an ill relative and especially when that ailment does not seem to have a silver lining. This total dependence on others leads to feelings of worthlessness as they see their situation depriving the ones they love of the chance to live life free. Some people that find themselves in that position may decide rather to end it all than to have their loved ones hate on them later from depriving them from living their own lives. On-going medical treatment is a very expensive venture and more often than not it affects the financial lives of the loved one who may also be left to pay the bills when the sufferer dies eventually. Many people may stipulate that since the person is going to die anyway that it might be better if the life is shortened instead of prolonging it and in so doing increasing their hospital debt. The lethal medication that is usually administered for euthanasia costs less than $100 and this is much cheaper than the continuing medical treatment of the patient. I believe that many people who choose or persuade others to have euthanasia have never stopped to consider what they would want to happen to them if they were the ones lying by a thread in that hospital bed.
I have heard many stories of people who have been affected in one way or the other by sicknesses that look incurable and how they have at one time or the other considered how much easier it would be for them to end it all. I remember the story of a friend whose mother was dying of cancer and how she one day joked that her son should use an axe and chop her head off. While she said it in jest on one of her better days, that friend did sit to think for a minute how much easier his life would be when his mother would die. While he was never going to get an ax to chop off his mother’s head or even allow her take the euthanasia route, he did admit that her illness was not just hard on her but it was hard on him as well. Dying is so different from child bearing and it does take time and unlike child bearing where there are people on hand to assist you bring in that new life, death happens when you are alone. In that instance he realised that euthanasia went far beyond the issue of morality or legality and was really all about how selfish one was. The issue I have with euthanasia is that it deprives the carers the time they needed to process how they would feel when that person was no longer in their lives. Just like my friend, many people are not ready to die and even though they may moan and groan and even wish death on the sufferer in their care when things get too hard for them, at the end of it all, they want these people to go only when they have fully prepared themselves for that loss. Those who agree with euthanasia will call my friend selfish and maybe he was, but isn’t that what love is about. They will claim that he deprived her going in a dignified manner and instead watch as she lost herself and her will to eat or live or endure insurmountable pain because he wanted to be with his loved one for one more day. They may argue that that person on that bed is no longer the loved one they knew but a caricature of their former selves and they may be right. But in all this I say that there is no telling the amount of pain that a human can bare if that human believes that there are loved ones cheering them on. Only a fool will believe that he will never die but then, everybody that is alive should be allowed to die and not pressured to give up their right to live so that their carers can go on with their lives – that is very selfish. What protects the terminally ill person from the clutches of their wicked family who would rather they die sooner rather than later. Does that man or woman who is been rattled by alheizmers have enough thinking faculty to realise that no one has the power to determine when he should die. There was a time that people saw abortion as a taboo but today the story is different. If the world continues to grow at the rate it is at the moment, I believe that there will come a time when euthanasia just might become law. I hope that if that day ever comes by that the people who wield the power to determine if grandma should die tomorrow should look back and think of all they have gone through and how one day it may be them lying on that bed and waiting for your grandson to give a verdict on your life. I hope that if that day does roll around that you and your grandson will choose life no matter how short it may be.
BBC. “Ethical Problems of Euthanasia.” n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/problems.shtml Campbell, Neil. “A Problem for the Idea of Voluntary Euthanasia.” Journal of Medical Ethics. 25 (1999) : pp 242-244. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://jme.bmj.com/content/25/3/242.full.pdf Berger, John. “Hiroshima: Paired Readings of the Reality of War.” n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://www.mccc.edu/pdf/esl135/hiroshima.pdf Larue, Gerald. “Euthanasia: A Global Issue.” North American Committee of Humanism. (1999) Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/larue.html Nickel & Dimed. “On Not Getting by in America.” New York: Metropolitan/ Owl Book, PDF. http://swcta.net/moore/files/2013/03/Nickel-and-Dimed-Barbara-Ehrenreich.pdf
Cite this page
Share with friends using:
Removal Request
Finished papers: 466
This paper is created by writer with
ID 271621024
If you want your paper to be:
Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate
Original, fresh, based on current data
Eloquently written and immaculately formatted
275 words = 1 page double-spaced
Can't find a free sample that matches your requirements?
Subscribe to WowEssays Premium and get access to over 1 MILLION high-quality downloadable samples
GET ACCESS NOW
Related Essays
Good evaluating graphics essay example.
Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]
Use your new password to log in
You are not register!
Short on a deadline?
Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED
No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline
The Essay Writing Experts US Essay Experts
Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay. Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.
View full disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.
Argumentative Essay Against Euthanasia
Reference this
Meaning of the word Euthanasia:
Types of euthanasia:.
- Active form {positive form}: refers to acts of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. For example giving a lethal dose of medicine to kill a terminally ill patient.
- Passive form : refers to an act of allowing a patient to die example not giving antibiotics to a terminally ill patient who has acquired pneumonia.
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
- Voluntary euthanasia
- Non voluntary euthanasia
- Voluntary allowing to die
- Non voluntary allowing to die
- Voluntary active euthanasia
- Non voluntary active euthanasia
- Voluntary passive euthanasia
- Non voluntary passive euthanasia
General Arguments Against Euthanasia:
My point of view about euthanasia:, counter arguments:.
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
Islam and Euthanasia:
Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice. Qur’an 17:33
When their time comes they cannot delay it for a single hour nor can they bring it forward by a single hour. Qur’an 16:61
Non-Religious Arguments against ‘Voluntary Euthanasia’:
Euthanasia according to kant’s ethical theory:, euthanasia according to mill’s ethical system:, conclusion:, cite this work.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related Services
Essay Writing Service
- Dissertation Writing Service
- Assignment Writing Service
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please:
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
- Find out more about our Essay Writing Service
- Undergraduate 2:2
- 7 day delivery
- Marking Service
- Samples of our Service
- Full Service Portfolio
Related Lectures
Study for free with our range of university lectures!
- All Available Lectures
Freelance Writing Jobs
Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?
Study Resources
Free resources to assist you with your university studies!
- Dissertation Resources at UKDiss.com
- How to Write an Essay
- Essay Buyers Guide
- Referencing Tools
- Essay Writing Guides
- Masters Writing Guides
Search Support Articles
*You can also browse our support articles here >
Change Region / Country
Here you can choose which regional hub you wish to view, providing you with the most relevant information we have for your specific region. If your specific country is not listed, please select the UK version of the site, as this is best suited to international visitors.
United Kingdom
United States
United Arab Emirates
Saudi Arabia
Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia
Argumentative essay on human euthanasia.
It is a shared understanding that human life must be valued under any circumstance, and it should not be terminated for whatever reasons unless it is a natural occurrence. The value and respect for human life were behind the debate against “the death row” in many states and countries around the world. In addition, religion places high value in human life, basing on the claim that it is a sin to end one’s life. However, there have been instances where ending the life of another person is the best alternative, especially in medical cases. The idea brought the emergence of euthanasia, where Math and Chaturvedi (2012) explain it as a Greek word that means “good death.” The purpose of good death is to assist a patient who will
The controversy on whether euthanasia should be legalized, and whether its morally right or wrong, has been ongoing across the country dating back to the 5th century. Euthanasia is the practice of death of terminally-ill or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Its classified as physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Euthanasia is illegal, but has been legalized in 5 states, (CA, CO, OR, VT, and WA) and D.C, under certain conditions. You must be 18 years or older, be a resident of the state, expected to die within 6 months, have orally asked for the procedure twice at least 15 days apart, and have the clearance of two specialist. Doctors have a moral responsibility to keep their patient alive, which is a part of the reason euthanasia is so controversial. It requires a doctor assisting in the death of a patient.
Argumentative Essay On Legalizing Euthanasia
Euthanasia is known to be a “physician-assisted suicide” where a terminally ill patient decides to end his or her life with the help of a professional. This is an illegal practice in most countries, including the United States. For several decades now, the allowance of euthanasia throughout the nation has been highly debated. In the U.S. euthanasia is illegal in most states with the exception of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and in Montana it is legal after a court ruling (Hanley). This has occurred as a result of the thousands of patients who have openly asked for help in dying.
Physician assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (“Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted…”). Throughout the years, assisted suicide has been a slippery slope for Americans to accept, therefore, making individuals believe this practice is murder while nations across the world have been carrying this out well before the United States planted their hands on the idea. On that account, euthanasia is only legal in six different states, while it is strictly illegal in the other 44 because of the racking up reasons individuals have implanted in their brains (“State-by-State…”). Every person has a specific outlook on mercy killing, although, physician assisted suicide is a patient's given right if they are terminally ill.
Physician-Assisted Suicide has always been a topic of great debate among individuals. Not only a contemporary issue, assisted-suicide, or euthanasia, has been practiced since the time of ancient Greeks and Romans; physicians often participated in the suicide of their patients for merciful reasons (Kopelman and De Ville 1). Euthanasia, which means “good death”, had a broader meaning than what we use it for today. According to Manning, it was “essential that death be met in a psychologically balanced state of mind, under composed circumstances, in a condition of self-control” (6). In other words, it was the manner in which one died rather than the method death was delivered that was important to the Greeks and Romans. Euthanasia did not have the negative stigma that suicide had attached to it, rather, it was advocated for by the ancients, granted that it was done for the right reasons.
In 1997, Oregon passed The Oregon Death With Dignity Act, which became the first law to permit physician-assisted suicide. Since then, six other states in the U.S. have joined Oregon. The topic debates that assisted death goes against religion and that it devalues human life. Many churches will tell people that if anyone commits suicide, that person will be condemned to hell. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) stated, “The movement to legalize euthanasia does not enhance freedom or self-determination because many of those fighting to kill themselves are depressed and need treatment or may be unduly influenced by familial, societal, or institutional pressures to end their lives. Furthermore, one cannot enhance human freedom and dignity by devaluing human life, the bishops explain” (“Euthanasia Devalues Human”). However, that’s far from the truth, people that choose assisted death have one hundred percent control of the whole process. Because most of the country doesn’t fully agree with physician-assisted death, it continues to be very controversial.
Euthanasi The Issue Of Euthanasia
The question of euthanasia, also referred to as mercy killing, is among the most disputable topic on ethics in America. It refers to the intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease intended as an act of mercy (Newhealthguide.org, 2016). Euthanasia is closely related to doctor assisted suicide. However, the two acts differ in that, euthanasia means injecting a terminally sick patient with lethal dose of a drug or withdrawing feeding tubes to let the patient die of starvation. Assisted suicide on the other hand refers to the process where a physician avails a lethal drug to the patient. The patient or his/her next of kin usually must consent to the action. By January 2016, the practice was allowed in the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Colombia and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Albania, while in the United States; it is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana and California. This document will argue about why euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should not be legalized in the remaining 44 states of the U.S.
The Debate On Euthanasia Is Never Ending
The debate on euthanasia is never ending. It is an important topic that debates whether assisted death is ethical or
Euthanasia has been around for a long time. In 1990 every state had laws that made assisting suicide a felony. Assisted suicide been in the news since the 1990s. A supporter of euthanasia Dr. Jack Kevorkian played an important role in more than 100 suicides before he was charged with murder. In Oregon voters passed the death with dignity act in 1994, but a lawsuit blocked its enforcement until 1997, when it went into effect. The consideration of potential harms is relevant because it’s deciding whether euthanasia should be legal or decriminalized. Some people are against euthanasia because they believe that taking one's life is immoral or against religion. Assisted suicide can be against because
Euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide is legal in only seven states in the United States. There are two types of euthanasia passive and active; active is the more controversial one. Active euthanasia is when a doctor prescribes a medication that will end the patient’s life whereas passive is the doctor withholding any further treatment to the patient (Nordqvist). Euthanasia is only an option to a patient who has a prognosis of six months or less to live. Active euthanasia should only be legal when multiple board certified doctors agree to the patient’s decision and it is absolutely necessary to be a choice in cases where there is no treatment. The reason euthanasia is illegal in majority of the United States is that many people believe that it should be illegal due to personal beliefs and values. However, everyone does not share the same beliefs and it should be based on the patient’s decision and their doctor’s approval. A sound-minded person with a prognosis of an inevitable death should not be forced to live out the rest of their life in pain and should have the right to die in peace.
Should a person have the right to decide when to end their fate and suffering? The medical term is called Euthanasia, which is the decision of a patient to end their life by demanding doctors to cease life support in a hospital. Also known as Physician aid in dying or assisted suicide, Euthanasia is considered illegal in most states within the United States with an exception of Oregon, Vermont, California, Colorado, Washington, Montana (Court Ruling) and the District of Columbia, according to CNN. With opposing views from liberals and religious conservatives, euthanasia has certainly been a controversial topic. Optimistic people believe the patient has the right to decide when to die, terminally ill patients face excruciating pain and it isn’t morally correct to leave the world in pain. However, religious concerns have been a huge argument against PAD, traditionalists believe there is only God that can end one’s life. Each argument has it’s own benefits but in an evolving world, Should euthanasia be considered legal? A hospital consists of limited resources, therefore it makes us question if these resources should be utilized on a patient who is soon to die or has no desire to live. Who is the government or a facility to decide the fate of patient who is clearly suffering? With the right to die, limited resources within a hospital, religious concerns, government involvement in end-of-life decisions, and healthcare implications, Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide should be made legal within all of the United States.
A more natural way to administer, or in some ways control, death would be through passive suicide. eu“Passive euthanasia occurs when a person is allowed to die due to the deliberate withdrawal of treatment that might keep them alive” (Pg.124)and prolong their life. It is a legal way of hastening death in a calm manner. Its methods are not the same as active suicide. The main difference is that it simply consists of removing treatments that would prolong life, instead of prescribing lethal doses of medicine to kill someone. Passive euthanasia is not as controversial for the main reason that even e“ many physicians consider it good medical practice not to prolong artificially the life of a suffering person whose disease is inevitably
Physician-assisted death (or PAD) is when a person that does not want to live due to a terminal and painful illness asks for help from a physician or doctor in taking their own life. Like PAD, euthanasia is when a person who is suffering from a terminal illness is allowed to die with dignity through the administration of a lethal dose of medicine, usually by a physician. Euthanasia differs from PAD in that the person suffering may or may not be able to let other people know that they want to have their life ended. Many people let loved ones know that they would not want to live if they fell into a vegetative state if they were in a bad accident or fell ill. Very sick people and their loved ones seek out help with euthanasia or PAD in order to die with the dignity before the sickness ravages their body. Being able to end your life prematurely is very controversial in our society even for those who are very sick and are likely to die anyway. Although there are many countries around the world that allow for some sort of euthanasia or PAD, there are very few states in the US that allow it currently. America needs to start accepting euthanasia and PAD since it is becoming a more-accepted practice across the globe and because it provides dignity in dying for those suffering from painful and terminal diseases.
In cases where an individual's quality of life is irreparably diminished by terminal illness, one may seek to end their life with the help of a doctor. This has been a solution for patient suffering in neighboring countries, but there are ethical and legal issues that make it an impractical solution for American healthcare. Considering the results of negative potential of euthanasia practices exposes its flaws, and sheds light on better alternatives. Therefore active euthanasia, not to be confused with physician assisted suicide, should not be legalized in the United States.
Most adults diagnosed with cancer undergo years of treatment in attempts to cure that cancer. However, sometimes these treatments may not work, or the cancer is found too late in a patient to be stopped, and a patient’s cancer can be determined terminal, which means that the cancer can not be cured and will lead to death. If cancer is determined terminal, end-of-life care can be administered patients to control lasting pains, including shortness of breath, nausea, and constipation. However, this treatment does not cure the cancer, and will not prevent death in a terminally ill cancer patient. In some cases, patients decide that receiving end-of-life treatment is not worth it if the treatment does not prevent death. Terminally ill cancer patients may also continue to experience unbearable suffering, despite end-of-life treatments, as it is not always effective. These factors may push some terminally ill cancer patients to request to be actively euthanized. Active euthanasia is the merciful ending of a patient’s life through a single act, such as an injection. Terminally ill cancer patients should have the right to determine if they are actively euthanized. However, only patients who consider their suffering unbearable should have the right to be euthanized.
Related Topics
Short on time?
Essay Service Examples Health Euthanasia
Arguments for Euthanasia Essay
- Topics: Euthanasia
- Essay Type: Argumentative
- This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples.
With the changes in views of modern society, what are ethically acceptable and unpleasant lies with the individuals? Most of the people in society believe that they have the freedom to decide what is appropriate as far as their life is concerned however, some believe that it is not proper to interfere with nature especially when it regards life. This essay will outline three justifications for Euthanasia/Assisted death including quality of life, the emotional pain of losing self-reliance and autonomy, and three justifications against including the devaluation of life, abuse of the vulnerable, and discouragement for new research.
The main argument in favor of Euthanasia is that the standard of life the patient experiences during the disease even with medication is severe. In some cases, some argue that the medication will have no effect on the disease, therefore opt for Euthanasia as an alternative. The whole purpose in this instance is to relieve a patient from hopelessness life which maybe be seen as harmful. Dying for that person is a benefit as compared to being alive even with the best end-of-life care. For example, a cancer patient whose chemotherapy is not responding is immobile, and cannot fend for herself might try to commit suicide if Euthanasia is not regarded as appropriate as a way to relieve extreme pain.
Another reason is that there is fear of the unknown, some patients according to Phillipa Malpas, Maria Wilson, Nicola Rae, and Malcolm Johnson were afraid of losing self-dependency and afraid to ask for assistance because they didn’t want to be a burden to their family and friends. In a study that was done, some treatments had left patients financially unstable, and asking for aid from relatives was just impossible for them.
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Finally, most people believe they have the right to die, each patient should be able to choose how and when they want to die. It is believed that the patients are the ones in pain and must die with dignity. They should have a final say in how they want to spend their last days without any hesitation or have any guilt regarding their decision. Just like people have the freedom to marry who they want, should also apply when an individual wants to decide on how to end his or her life.
However, supporters against Euthanasia believe that it devalues life, the community’s appreciation of life will fade and people might end up not treasuring it. Keith Wilson in his study believes that life is extremely important and should be preserved at any cost, meaning that it must be lived to the last stage of it naturally. Thus, any artificial inference is regarded as inappropriate.
The advocates against Euthanasia also believe that gives too much power to medical expertise, which will lead to abuse. Doctors and nurses might dedicate less of their time to those that are terminally ill even though the patients still have hope which will result in them dying early than anticipated. Exposes helpless people, coercion from insensitive family members, less care of the extremely ill.
In summary, this essay has explained the arguments for and against assisted death. It explained the trauma the patient’s experience, and the fear associated during the course of their diseases. It also mentioned how the patients have power over their lives and are entitled to choose how they what to end it. However, on the other hand, arguments against showed that life will not be treasured or valued, and many people will abuse those that are vulnerable. Scientists will lose confidence as people will be opting for an easy way out (assisted death).
Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.
Cite this Page
Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.
Related essay Topics
Popular categories, most popular essays.
Introduction Euthanasia, a common term used for assisted death, refers to the process where a person’s life is taken so as to end their pain and suffering. The term is derived from the Greek word meaning good death (Patil, 2013). The moral consequences attached to such an act can become quite complicated. Philosophical debates on the matter have been prevalent since olden Greek times, with both views for and against the act being prevalent (Landry, Foreman, and Kekewich, 2015). There...
- Right to Die
Imagine, you have just been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. The doctor tells you that you have less than six months to live and that your time remaining will be extremely painful and you will likely encounter severe seizures and horrific bouts of daily vomiting in the months before your body finally surrenders to death. Would you wonder if there was a quicker way for the living nightmare to end? Would you want the right to choose the way...
INTRODUCTION Numerous discussions over euthanasia have been going since ages among wellbeing experts. Euthanasia word originates from Greek and also widely known as willful extermination which means great passing or makes a finish of life effortless, shorting life in remarkable condition. Person’s perspective toward euthanasia is relied upon numerous conditions, for example, religious background, race, and so on. Euthanasia can be delegated active and passive. Active methods acquainting something with cause demise and passive methods retaining treatment or strong measures...
Euthanasia is the process of deliberately ending someone’s life in order to calm uncontrollable suffering. This usually applies to people who are in a coma or paralyzed and are on life support. Mercy killing, doctor-assisted suicide, dying with nobility, a good death, are some of the terms used to express this act. It has been a relevant issue in human rights talk as it influences moral as well as lawful issues concerning medicinal services suppliers and patients. There are two...
The word euthanasia (greek term meaning good death) or mercy killing is the act of painless killing of suffering patients to relieve them from the pain they are experiencing. Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something necessary to keep the person alive. A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally or has a disease that will lead to death within weeks or months Countries that allows euthanasia...
Imagine you have been diagnosed with a chronic illness with excruciating side effects. You are unable to eat, sleep, or walk without overwhelming pain. The doctors say you have under six months left to live and you know that you will spend that time suffering. You no longer have the desire to live and begin considering euthanasia. But what actually is euthanasia? Is it morally permissible? Who all will be affected by your decision? Euthanasia is defined as “the painless...
In the world today, there are various opinions as to what should be considered ethical and/or unethical. At an early age, many people learn the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, but we all tend to develop our own ideas of why something is right or wrong and/or good or bad. Although we learn these concepts early in life and develop our own opinions rather quickly, there are some situations in life that may cause individuals to feel...
The element of euthanasia (painless assisted killing of a patient that is suffering) is that it is seen as morally wrong to assist in someone’s choice of death over life because it is basically assisting a person suffering to commit suicide. If Euthanasia would be illegal it would cause problems. These problems consist of the individual unable to make the decision for themself. Head trauma making them unable to think for themselves. How do we know if the person does...
The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast the various viewpoints of Christian deontology and utilitarian physician with regards to euthanasia. Euthanasia involves termination of the life of an individual to relieve them from their suffering due to terminal illness. The act of euthanasia as sparked a lot of debate among philosophers who have deontological and utilitarian perceptions. Deontological ethics justifies whether an action is right or wrong with regards to the moral code of the action. On...
- Get original paper written according to your instructions
- Save time for what matters most
Fair Use Policy
EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected]
We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
There have been many that were beneficial to human life. There have also been many done in vain, or pure hate. Mercy killings, as well as assisted suicide, is
Free Essays from Cram | Mercy Killing or Murder: Where Is The Line Drawn? In various situations, committing a crime ... Argumentative Essay On Mercy Killing.
Free Essay: Mercy Killing, also known as euthanasia. It is a prominent topic for life and death morality issues. In most basic terms, euthanasia is the act.
Euthanasia is another word for mercy-killing, those who are in great pain and their treatments show no sign of progress can choose euthanasia as an option to
“Euthanasia is an act or practice of killing or permitting the death ... This argumentative essay will argue that euthanasia should not be
There are many good arguments for and against euthanasia or mercy killing. We present the top arguments from both sides.
Read Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia Mercy Killing Or Murder and other exceptional papers on every subject and topic college can throw at
Euthanasia or mercy killing is a moral act done out of duty to those in suffering or an act for self-benefit under cover of morality or is
Free Essay: Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, ... Every person has a specific outlook on mercy killing, although, physician assisted
Topics: Euthanasia; Essay Type: Argumentative ... This essay will outline three justifications for Euthanasia/Assisted death including quality of life